THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 




Thomas Hooker 



THE 

COLONIAL HISTOEY 

OF 

HAETFOED 

GATHERED FROM THE ORIGINAL RECORDS 

Illustrated 



BY 

Rev. WILLIAM DeLOSS LOVE, Ph.D. 



PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR 
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 
MDCCCCXIV 



'-•■ 



COPYRIGHT, 191 4, BY WILLIAM DELOSS LOVE 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 



LIMITED EDITION 

THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY COPIES 

PRINTED FROM TYPE 



NUMBER. 



19. 



THE-PLIMPTON-PRE8S 
NORWOOD'MASS-U'9-A 



TO 

JOHN JAY CORNING 

A DESCENDANT OF THE FOUNDERS OF 

HARTFORD 

THIS VOLUME IS INSCRIBED 



PREFACE 

The town of Hartford has passed the two hundred and 
seventy-fifth anniversary of its settlement, and, in a few 
years, it will have completed three centuries of history. 
The early town that the founders knew has long since 
disappeared. Features that were familiar for generations 
have been swept away by the ravages of time. Only a 
few landmarks now remain. Within the area of what was 
formerly a country town, a large city has grown into vigor- 
ous life. To the sons and daughters of Hartford, the story 
of this development during colonial times, is of interest. 
It may also serve a patriotic purpose, by helping her citi- 
zens to maintain a fellowship with the forefathers, and by 
awakening in her children of foreign descent a loyal regard 
for her traditions. In the hope of rendering such a service 
to the city, for which the author confesses a strong personal 
affection, this volume has been written, in the course of a 
study of the records, extending over many years. 

Students of Connecticut records have occasionally ac- 
knowledged their doubt whether certain fundamental facts, 
which concern both our local history and the founding of 
the Colony, have been correctly conceived. Views have 
become current, and have been passed on from one authority 
to another, which appeal for their warrant largely to records 
that have been lost, and are not in harmony with those that 
are extant. Such is the opinion that three organized towns 
created the Commonwealth. The records prior to 1639 
that have disappeared, were those of three plantations, 
which were constituted as such and bore the names of the 
three Massachusetts towns from which their inhabitants 
emigrated. We have, fortunately, the early records of 
Springfield, at first united with them, to disclose the nature of 
their government. Hartford, alone, has documentary evi- 
dence of any town organization before the Commonwealth 
was formally established. Its own records show that the 



vin PREFACE 

legality of their premature organization and its acts was 
derived from the authority of the General Court of the 
colony. There has always been, moreover, an inconsistency 
between the theory of a commonwealth, created by three 
towns, and the claim of Connecticut, to have inaugurated 
modern democracy in her government. Neither the terms 
used in the Colonial Records, nor the language of the Con- 
stitution, declaring that it was the fundamental law of the 
"Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Harteford and 
Wethersfield," support the belief that they participated in 
this act as organized towns. It was the constitution of the 
people. Thus the zeal of historians, in advocating a tradi- 
tional theory, has blinded them to the discovery of the initial 
establishment of democracy and the practice of its principles 
from the beginning of the Colony, as taught by the founders 
and, in due time, declared in a written constitution. It is 
not a sacrilege to dig about the roots of the vines to dis- 
cover the truth. One method only is open to the historian 
under these circumstances — that of thorough research in 
the original records, which the truth must perfectly harmo- 
nize. Conclusions have thus been reached that were not an- 
ticipated and are at variance with the traditional belief; 
but the evidence seems to the author to warrant no other. 
As briefly stated, these conclusions are as follows: that, in 
the settlement of the River Plantations under the Warwick 
Patent, a compromise was effected, by which the govern- 
ment was made over to the colonists; that this was expressed 
in the Commission for a provisional government, which 
left them full liberty at its expiration; that the founders of 
Hartford considered that they had thus secured a right to 
the lands which the Dutch claimed; that the three original 
settlements were established as plantations, like Springfield, 
and so continued in their relation to the General Court 
until after the adoption of the Constitution, January 14, 
1638-9, the legal inhabitants being represented by commit- 
tees; that even the prior choice of townsmen by the North- 
side and South-side plantations of Hartford, for the sake 
of unity in their own affairs, did not give it participation, 
as a town, in the adoption of the Constitution, nor consti- 
tute legal standing as a factor in the government; and that 



PREFACE ix 

these plantations were authorized, by the General Court of 
the colony, October 10, 1639, to organize their town gov- 
ernments, which they effected before the next Court of 
Election, April 9, 1640, when their representatives were 
recognized as such and are called "Deputies" in the records. 

The nature of these studies of original authorities has 
made it impossible to write a popular history. Such a 
volume, if it embodied current opinions concerning many 
early events, such as the pilgrimage of Thomas Hooker, 
would be of little permanent value; and if our deductions 
from the records had been so used, without detailed evi- 
dence, the volume would be discredited. The author has 
been content to adjust some of the foundation stones of our 
colonial history, and to build thereon with the materials 
which the records themselves provide. The town of Hart- 
ford has occupied such a place in the Commonwealth that 
this has been considered the greater service. Nor has it 
seemed necessary to continue this study into the last cen- 
tury. In 1883 and 1884 a series of articles on the "First 
Hundred Years of the City of Hartford," by Mr. John W. 
Stedman, was published in the Hartford Sunday Journal. 
About the same time the reminiscences of some aged citi- 
zens on "Old Days in Hartford" were preserved in the 
columns of The Connecticut Post. Many historical papers 
have also appeared in The Hartford C our ant and The Hart- 
ford Times. These, with The Memorial History of Hartford 
County and certain monographs, magazine articles and 
church histories, have amply covered the field, and are cited 
in references. 

It has been necessary to use antiquarian methods in 
solving some problems presented. In the absence of recorded 
statements, some conclusions do not admit of documentary 
proof. The householder, having lost his door key, believes 
that the one he finds on the steps, which fits the lock, is his 
own; but he has no absolute proof. Such beliefs rest upon 
the strength of probability. Thus many historical state- 
ments, now generally received as true, were at first estab- 
lished. The author has endeavored to make clear this 
distinction, and to qualify any matters of personal opinion 
or interpretation. 



x PREFACE 

We make grateful mention of Mr. William S. Porter, 
whose laborious researches in the Hartford Land Records, 
in 1839, have in some respects lightened our labors; and 
of the local historians of the river towns. As the inception 
of this study was due to the printing of the first volume of 
Hartford Toivn Votes, in 1897, we express our indebtedness 
to Mr. James J. Goodwin, who, through the Connecticut 
Historical Society, made that publication possible. These 
records, with the book of Original Distribution, recently 
printed through the same agency, constitute the classics 
of Hartford's early history. It is hoped that the author's 
work will bring out into the light some facts hitherto con- 
cealed in their pages. The latter publication is cited in 
references, although most of the research was done in the 
manuscript volume some years since. 

To the several officials of the city and state, acknowledg- 
ment is made for every courtesy in the examination of pub- 
lic records; to Mr. George S. Goddard, librarian of the 
State Library for access to many manuscripts in the ar- 
chives; to Mr. Albert C. Bates, librarian of the Connecticut 
Historical Society, for material that has been helpful; 
and especially to Mr. Albert L. Washburn, surveyor, and 
an expert in our land records, for his generous cooperation 
and assistance. 

WILLIAM DeLOSS LOVE 
Hartford, Conn., February 23, 1914 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER I 

The Pioneers of Hartford in 1635 

PAGE 

Removal from Newtown. — Some Hartford Settlers arrive from England. — 
Six Agents sent to Connecticut. — Their Report of Suckiaug. — Scarcity 
of Land in Newtown. — Who were the Pioneers? — Thomas Shepard's 
Arrival. — The Meeting at Stone's House. — Recording and Selling 
Homes. — Elder William Goodwin's Party. — Their Departure Oc- 
tober 15th. — Windsor's Disaster. — Arrival at Suckiaug. — Settle- 
ment on the North-side. — Clement Chaplin. — Some Return for 
the Winter. — North-side Plantation established. — Winter Hardships . 1 

CHAPTER II 

Settlement Under the Warwick Patent 

The "Warwick Patent." — Dissensions at Windsor. — Many Return to 
Dorchester. — Representatives of the Patentees. — They Challenge the 
Emigrants. — Under Whose Jurisdiction? — Conferences of the Winter. 

— Patentees need Colonists. — Emigrants want Land. — The Com- 
promise embodied in a Commission for Government. — The Patent 
and Dutch Claims. — Purchase from the Indians necessary. — The 
Dutchmen's Boundaries. — A Springtime Party. — Was Samuel Stone 
its Leader? — Patent Rights asserted. — The Dutch Protest referred 
to Winthrop. — South-side Plantation begun. — Obligations to John 
Winthrop, Jr 17 

CHAPTER III 

The Pilgrimage of Thomas Hooker 

Distinctive Features of Hartford's Settlement. — Hooker's Relation to 
Earlier Parties. — Delay of Departure. — Members of Hooker's Com- 
pany. — Winthrop's Account. — Mather's Narrative. — He is Fol- 
lowed by Hutchinson. — Error in Details. — The Compass Legend. — 
Early New England Travel. — The Path in 1636. — Evidence of the 
Route. — Pilgrims in the Wilderness. — The Encampment. — Recent 
Discoveries of the Path. — The Sabbath Rest. — Way to Quabaug. — 
Arrival at Agawam. — Records of the "Country Road" to Hartford. 

— Where it crossed Namerick Brook. — Arrival at Newtown 30 



xii CONTENTS 



CHAPTER IV 

Organization of the Town- 
page 
The Town in Connecticut. — Organization hindered by Conditions. — The 
River Settlements were Plantations. — Governed by Legal Inhabitants. 

— Agawam an Illustration. — Hartford's Plantations have Separate 
Organizations. — Advantages of Dual Settlement. — William Spencer's 
Service. — Critical Study of Town Votes. — First Election of Towns- 
men in 1G;>7. — Union its Purpose. — Unauthorized Choice of Town 
Clerk. — Townsmen and a Town Court. — Windsor's Plantation. — 
Organization after General Court's Action. — Proof in Town Records. 

— Wethersfield's Enigma. — Tripartite Agreement. — Dissensions re- 
sult from Town Organization 47 

CHAPTER V 

Connecticut's Early Government 

Antecedents of Democracy. — Provisional Government. — Created by the 
Emigrants. — Early Courts. — The Inhabitants elect Magistrates. — 
Popular Election Impracticable. — Representation by Committees. — 
Their Legislative Year. — General Courts. — Agawam withdraws. — 
Preparing the Constitution. — The Sermon of Thomas Hooker. — 
How the Fundamental Orders were adopted. — The Will of the People. 

— No Town represented. — A Dramatic Scene. — Operation of 
Colonial Government delayed. — New Factors created. — Final Ac- 
tion October 10, 1639. — Authority given for Town Organization. — 
Deputies of Towns displace Committees of Inhabitants 64 

CHAPTER VI 

Indian Forts in Hartford 

The River Indians. — Sequassen's Village at Suckiaug. — Allies in the 
Pequot War. — Removal to the South Meadow. — Indian Neighbors 
of the Dutch. — Land of Manorolos and Sequassen. — Fight with 
Uncas. — Sequassen's Land divided. — An Indian Fort. — Heirs of 
Manorolos. — Pequot Heads. — Pesiponck, a Native Bath House. — 
Fort Hill at Hockanum. — Stronghold at Podunk. — Incidents in its 
History. — Scene of Miantinomo's Death. — Burning of Major Rich- 
ard's Buildings. — A Son of Miantinomo. — Ten Hostages given. — 
Massecup in Prison. — Removal to Farmington 81 

CHAPTER VII 

The Dutch and their Hocse of Hope 

English Colonist and butch Trader. — West India Company. — Trade of 
the Pilgrims. — English Claims. — Early Ventures on Connecticut 
River. — House of Hope. — Holmes's Expedition. — Dutch Opposition. 

— Purchase from the Pequots. — English Settlement. — The Dutch pro- 



CONTENTS xin 

PAGE 

test. — DeVries intercedes. — Dispute over Rights. — The English , 
fence their Lots. — An Encounter. — Impounding Dutch Cattle. — 
Winthrop's Statement. — Arbitration sought in Holland. — Boswell's 
Advice. — William Kieft. — Agreement of 1650. — Seizure by Captain 
Underhill. — Tracts of Dutch Land. — Location of the House of Hope. 
— The "Redout." — Its Ruins. — Site partly owned by the City 98 



CHAPTER VIII 

Proprietors of Hartford 

Extensive Lands wanted. — Indian Conveyances. — The Territory included. 

— Five-mile Purchase. — Proprietorship. — "Original Proprietors in 
1639." — Grants by the Town's Courtesy. — Their Proportions vary. — 
Rates assessed on Lands. — All Grants are Conditional. — Speculation 
is excluded. — Settlers are rewarded. — General Court's Action con- 
cerning Undivided Lands. — Who were the Owners? — Committee to 
determine. — The Rule of Division. — List of Proprietors. — Additions 
to Town's Courtesy Class. — Inequalities adjusted. — East-side Division. 

— Rule used in 1674. — Inhabitants divide Five-mile Tract. — The Con- 
test of 1754. — Ancient Proprietors win 116 



CHAPTER IX 

Plantation Divisions 

Lost Plantation Books. — Principles of Allotment. — "Original Distribu- 
tion." — Early Settlers anthorized to Sell. — Practice in recording 
Lots. — Dividing Line. — House-lots. — Little Meadow. — North 
Meadow. — South Meadow. — Cow Pasture. — Neck. — Little Ox Pas- 
ture. — South-side Ox Pasture. — Upland Divisions. — East-side Mead- 
ow. — Westfield. — Venturers' Field. — Pinefield. — Middle Ox Pas- 
ture. — Old Ox Pasture. — Highways Westward. — West Division. — 
Bridgefield. — Town Common. — Soldiers' Field. — Original Grantees. 

— Additional Soldiers. — The Missing Men. — House-lots the Greatest 
Reward. — North-side Soldiers' Row. — Similar Row on the South-side. 

— Conclusions 131 



CHAPTER X 

Growth of the Town 

View of the Settlement in 1640. — Increase of Population. — A Rural Com- 
munity. — Changing Appearance. — Their Building Operations. — Pre- 
paring Timbers. — Stone Quarries. — Bricks. — Agricultural Labors. — 
Fencing. — Activities determine Development. — Highways. — Work on 
them Compulsory. — Causeways. — Encroachments. — Pounds needed. 
— Centinel Hill. — Filling for Main Street. — Hill graded. — An Open 
Area. — Bartholomew Barnard's Homestead. — Fortified Houses. — 
Talcott's Warehouse. — Removal of Pound. — Barnard's Ponds. — 
Process of Transformation 151 



xiv CONTENTS 

CHAPTER XI 

Along the Great River 

page 
The Naming of Hartford. — First City Seal. — Indebtedness to the Con- 
necticut River. — Early Channel. — Bird's Island. — Land east of the 
Creek. — The Scott-Cadwell Lot. — Thomas Cadwell's Warehouse. — 
Jonathan Gilbert's Enterprise. — Environs of the Landing in 1678. — 
Other Warehouses. — Improvements on the East-side. — Establish- 
ment of the Ferry. — Early Ferrymen of Hartford. — Licensed to keep 
Taverns. — Use of Revenues. — Wharves. — Front Street in 1775. — 
"Haynes's Pasture." — Early Houses and Shops east of Front Street. — 
"Cheapside." — Old Ferry Street. — "Jones's Landing." — The North 
Shipyard. — Traffic from the East-side 166 

CHAPTER XII 

The Banks of the Riveret 

The Riveret of the Forefathers. — Its Various Names. — Allyn's First Mill. — 
His Second Mill. — The Town's Competition. — Allyn and Bidwell. — 
History of the Upper Mills. — Badger's Road. — Early Bridges. — 
Hopkins's Mill at the Falls. — The Town Mill. — Later Owners. — 
Destruction of the First Bridge. — Differences as to Location. — Bridge 
burned in 1672. — Change of Place. — "Town Bridge" and "Great 
Bridge." — Some Landmarks on its Banks. — Tanneries. — Islands of 
Early Times. — The Armory Tract. — Flaxseed Oil Mill 181 

CHAPTER XIII 

Ancient Meeting Houses 

The First Meeting House. — Some Notable Assemblies. — Meeting House 
of 1638. — Location and Size. — The Porch Chamber. — Later Improve- 
ments. — The Broken Bell. — Sequel to the Church Controversy. — 
The South-side Congregation. — Location of their Meeting House. — 
Evidence of its Size. — Lawsuit over the Site. — Whiting's Loyal Sup- 
porters. — Proposed Union of the Churches. — Third Meeting House 
of the First Church. — Fixing a New Site for the Second Church. — 
Two Steeples. — Edifices on the East-side. — West Hartford Edifices. 
— Colonial Beginnings of other Denominations 197 

CHAPTER XIV 

Some Public Buildings 

Early Court Sessions. — The Custom in England. — Thomas Ford's Inn. — 
Jeremy Adams his Successor. — His Agreement with the Colony. — The 
Court Chamber. — Zachary Sandford the Host. — Andros and the 
Charter. — The Charter Oak. — General Assembly convenes in the 
Meeting House. — Governor Saltonstall proposes Court Houses. — Old 
Court House. — Erection of the State House. — Bulfinch the Architect. 



CONTENTS xv 

PAGE 

— Original Appearance. — Reception to La Fayette. — Old City Hall. 

— Early Town Officers. — Beginnings of Post Service. — Newspapers 

and Post Riders. — Postmasters of Hartford 215 

CHAPTER XV 

Social Resorts and Life 

Acquaintance with Colonial Society. — Inns as Social Resorts. — The 
Typical Landlord. — Scenes in Adams's Inn. — Transmission of News. 

— "Black Horse Tavern." — Some Other Resorts. — Taverns near the 
Ferry. — South-side Hosts. — Drinking Customs. — Visiting. — The 
Social Side of Military Trainings. — Election Day. — Transformation 
of the Puritan. — Succeeding Generations. — Changing Fashions of 
Dress. — An Indication of Social Life. — Jewelry. — Inventories of 
Apparel. — An Early Trader. — One of the Proprietors. — The Colonial 
Gentleman. — A Wealthy Dame. — The Lady of Fashion 232 

CHAPTER XVI 

Early Schools of the Town 

Laying the Corner-stone. — John Higginson. — Other Schoolmasters. — 
"The Town House." — "Goody Betts." — Desired Improvements. — 
The Unnamed Friend. — Laws of 1650. — Elder Goodwin represents 
Governor Hopkins. — The Greenhill Lot. — Suspension of Grammar 
School. — The Hopkins Bequest. — Opposition to the Trustees. — 
Hartford's Proportion. — Hopkins Grammar School. — Caleb Watson. 

— Elementary Schools. — Erecting a School-house. — Homestead of 
Thomas Seymour, Esq. — Parish Schools. — Formation of Districts. — 
Later History of the Grammar School 251 

CHAPTER XVII 

Phases of Criminal History 

Criminal Courts of Colonial Times. — The Particular Court and its Judges. — 
Laws. — Penalties. — Contempt of Court. — Various Offenses. — Ref- 
ormation and Probation. — Defamation of Character. — Social Im- 
morality. — Servants a Menace. — Marriage and Social Virtue. — 
Divorces. — Civil Cases. — Treatment of Witchcraft. — Hartford's Exe- 
cutions. — Punishments near the Meeting House. — Early House of 
Correction. — Building of 1698. — Establishment of the Colony Work- 
house. — Transfer to the County. — Hartford Gaol. — Old Jail of 1793. 

— Relief of the Poor. — Workhouse and Almshouse 276 

CHAPTER XVIII 

Trade and Shops 

Dependence on Trade. — Markets and Fairs. — Traffic with the Indians. — 
Export Trade. — Vessels owned in Hartford. — Hopkins and Whiting. 

— Richard Lord. — John McKnight. — Methods of Exchange. — 



xvi CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Trade at the Ferry. — Early Shops. — Artisans. — Evolution of the 
Store. — The Appearance of Main Street. — South-side Residents and 
their Shops. — North of Shepard's Corner. — " Unicorn and Mortar." 

— Development of the Stanley Lot. — Green and Watson. — Hudson 
and Doolittle. — The Burying Ground. — Mookler's Barber Shop. — 
" Heart and Crown." — West of the Court House. — State Street Mer- 
chants. — Along Queen Street 295 

CHAPTER XIX 

Houses of Colonial Times 

The English Colonists' Ideal of Home. — Early Development. — The Bliss 
Homestead. — Houses of the First Settlers. — Arrangement of Rooms. 

— Size of Houses. — Materials and Construction. — Changes of Type. 

— Various Uses of Rooms. — Interior Furnishings. — The Whiting- 
Bull-Burr Homestead. — Home Lot of Governor Hopkins. — James 
Richards's Manor House. — Later Occupants. — Captain Thomas Sey- 
mour. — Home of Isaac Sheldon. — History of a Homestead in the 
Meeting House Yard. — Captain Jonah Gross. — His Brick House. — 
The Morrison Mansion. — Home of Thomas Green 319 



CHAPTER XX 

Incorporation of the City 

Connecticut's Incorporation Movement in 1784. — Its Beginning in New 
Haven. — Hartford during the Revolutionary War. — The State im- 
poverished. — Agitation of the Impost. — "Policy of Connecticut." — 
Governor Trumbull favors Incorporation. — Municipal Government 
necessary to Progress. — Opposition of the Farmers. — Hartford's 
Favorable Action. — The Remonstrance. — Second Memorial. — 
Charter of Hartford. — Limits of the City. — Court of Common 
Council. — City Court. — The First Election. — Progressives in Power. 
— Colonel Wadsworth. — Services to the City. — Improvements disclose 
Former Conditions. — City Streets. — Solomon Porter's Survey. — 
City By-Laws. — Up-River Trade. — Commercial Interests. — The 
State House, a Memorial of the City's Incorporation 343 

Index 359 



ILLUSTRATIONS 

Thomas Hooker Frontispiece 

From a picture of the statue on the State Capitol, in " The Sculpture of 
Charles Henry Niehaus." 

The North-side Plantation, 1635 10 

Sketch showing the house-lots of the pioneers at Suckiaug. 

Governor John Winthrop of Connecticut 18 

From a copy in the State Library, painted by George F. Wright, after the 
original portrait in the possession of Mrs. Robert Winthrop of New 
York. 

The Pilgrimage of Thomas Hooker 32 

From an engraving by Seth H. Clark, in Scaeva's "Hartford in the Olden 
Time." 
An Early Camping Place on the Bay Path, Fisk Hill, Sturbridge, 

Mass 42 

From a photograph taken in 1913. 

The Country Road at Namerick Brook, used before 1662 42 

From a photograph taken in 1913. 

The Adoption of the Fundamental Orders 76 

From the mural decoration by Albert Herter, in the Supreme Court Room, 
State Library. 

The Departure for the Pequot War 84 

From a study by J. Massey Rhind, Sc, made for the Department of Public 
Parks, Hartford. 

The South-side Plantation, 1636 108 

Sketch showing the lands of the Dutch and Indians, with the house-lots of 
their English neighbors. 

Hartford in 1640 120 

" Prepared from the Original Records by Vote of the Town, and drawn by 
William S. Porter, Surveyor and Antiquarian." 

Plantation Divisions of Hartford 134 

Drawn by Albert L. Washburn after the Author s map. 

View of Hartford from the Deaf and Dumb Asylum, 1849 152 

From a lithograph engraved by E. Whitefield, in the collection of Morgan B. 
Brainard. 

Coat of Arms, after the City's Seal adopted in 1852 166 

The First Seal of the City of Hartford, 1785 166 

Fire at the Foot of Ferry Street 170 

From the engraved heading of the Hartford Fire Insurance Company 
Policy No. 80, 1811. 
View of Hartford form the East Side of Connecticut River, 1841 178 
From a lithograph "printed and engraved by Rob* Havell," in the col- 
lection of Morgan B. Brainard. 



xviii ILLUS TRA TIONS 

Little River about 1854 190 

From a lithograpk, drawn by J. Ropes and published by E. C. Kellogg, in 
the collection of Morgan B. Brainard. 

The Meeting House of 1638 200 

From a sketch based upon the records and drawn by Edward T. Hapgood, 
architect. 

The Stuart Homestead and the Charter Oak 218 

From a painting by Henry Bryant, in the possession of Miss Ellen M. 
Stuart. 

The State House of 1719 222 

From a sketch drawn by Edward T. Hapgood, architect, after an illustra- 
tion in "Geer's Directory." 

Moses Butler's Tavern 238 

From a drawing in the Connecticut Historical Society, after the original 
sketch made by William Roderick Lawrence in 18$8. 

House of Thomas Seymour, Esq., 1750 268 

From a photograph taken in 191$. 

The Old Jail, Erected in 1793 292 

From a photograph in the Connecticut Historical Society. 

The Isaac Bliss Homestead 820 

From a painting in the Connecticut Historical Society. 

The Amos Bull and Joseph Whiting Houses 330 

The Whiting-Bull-Burr House was erected in the second half of the sev- 
enteenth century and torn down in 191$. The Amos Bull-Edwin 
Spencer House is on the left. From a water-color sketch painted 
before 1828 by George Francis, in the collection of Morgan B. 
Brainard. 

The Richards-Sheldon-Woodbridge House 336 

From a photograph in the collection of the late Samuel Taylor. 

House of Captain Jonah Gross 340 

Survivor of a fiomestead in the original meeting-house yard. From a 
photograph taken in 191$. " 

House of Dr. Roderick Morrison, 1750 340 

In 1767, the home of Thomas Green, the founder of " The Connecticut 
Courant," and George Goodwin his apprentice. From a photograph 
taken in 191$. 

The State House of 1792 352 

From a sketch made after various early pictures by Charles L. N. Camp 
for Mrs. Emily S. Holcombe, President of the Connecticut Society 
of Colonial Dames, and representing the edifice about 1835. 



The 
Colonial History of Hartford 

CHAPTER I 
THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635 

The reasons that moved the people of Newtown, under the 
leadership of Thomas Hooker, to remove from Massachu- 
setts to Connecticut, and thus become the founders of 
Hartford, have been fully discussed by historians. Agita- 
tion of the project began prior to May 15, 1634, on which 
date the General Court gave them permission "to seeke out 
some convenient place," promising to confirm it to them, 
provided the place chosen was not prejudicial to any planta- 
tion already settled. A removal outside of the jurisdiction 
of Massachusetts was not then contemplated, nor such 
permission intended; but subsequent events led them to 
interpret this action as liberty to go whither they desired. 
When a vote was taken, later, concerning the removal of 
Dorchester and Watertown, they were restricted to con- 
tinue still under Massachusetts government. The Newtown 
emigrants may have thought that the place to which they 
were going was within the Bay Colony, but no such condi- 
tion was ever imposed upon them. This early vote gave 
them more time and greater liberty to seek out a suitable 
location. It is important to follow the sequence of events 
after this action of May 15, 1634, for two years intervened 
between it and the pilgrimage of Thomas Hooker's company. 
Shortly after they received the above permission, they 
sent men to Agawam and Merrimack "to find a fit place." 
They may have considered favorably the former location, 
for they "gave out they would remove"; but, even as they 
were reconnoitering, Rev. Thomas Parker and his com- 
pany, just arrived from England, went thither to settle, 
and they were shut out. 



2 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

At that time two ships, at least, were on the ocean, 
among whose passengers were original settlers of Hartford. 
They had sailed from Ipswich, England, about "the last of 
April," and because they had a pleasant voyage, arriving 
early in June, and very likely, also, because several of the 
passengers went to Agawam to settle, they changed its 
name to Ipswich. One of these ships was the Elizabeth, 
with Thomas Scott, William Blumfield, Robert Day, and, 
some say, Nathaniel Ely and John Clarke. The other was 
the Francis, with William W'estwood, John Barnard, Nicholas 
Gennings and W T illiam Holton. In one of the six ships 
that had arrived in May, William Pantry, Samuel Greenhill, 
Timothy Stanley, and probably Thomas Stanley, were 
passengers. The distribution of lands at Newtown, August 
4, 1634, may indicate that the following new-comers were 
also passengers in one of the "fourteen great ships" that 
arrived in June: Joseph Easton, James Ensign, John 
Hopkins, Thomas Judd, Stephen Post and George Stock- 
ing. These accessions quickened the desires of Newtown 
for more extensive fields. 

We are not surprised, therefore, that within a few weeks 
of their arrival, or early in July, Winthrop records the fact 
that "Six of Newtown went in the Blessing, (being bound 
to the Dutch plantations,) to discover Connecticut River, 
intending to remove their town thither." These men were 
agents of Newtown. Perhaps some of the new arrivals 
were among them. Hubbard says: "The place which those 
that went from Cambridge had by their agents chosen to 
settle upon, was by the Indians called Suckiaug, where 
some of them began the plantation in the end of the year 
1635, Mr. Hooker and Mr. Stone, the ministers of the 
church, engaging to follow them the next year, which they 
did and called it Hartford." 1 We have none of the names 
of these six agents. They doubtless accomplished their 

1 Hubbard's History of New England, pp. 306, 307. Mather has the following 
passage in the Magnolia (1:81): "It was in the year 1635, that this design was 
first formed; and the disposition of the celebrated Mr. Thomas Hooker, with his 
people now in Cambridge, to engage in the design, was that which gave most life 
unto it. They then sent their agents to view the country, who returned with so 
advantageous a report that the next year there was a great remove of good people 
thither." 



THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635 3 

purpose and visited Suckiaug, but we have no account of 
their experiences. 1 They were the first Hartford men to 
discover Suckiaug, unless some of the traders of 1633 visited 
the place and afterwards settled there. They returned home 
during the summer with a favorable report of the land. 

The next General Court met September 3, 1634, and its 
main business was the removal of Newtown to Connecticut. 
Mr. Hooker urged the " f ruitfulness and commodiousness 
of Connecticut," as one who was speaking upon the informa- 
tion of their agents. The point was made, in reply, that 
they would expose themselves to evident peril, both from 
the Dutch and from the Indians. The result of this con- 
troversy was that an enlargement of Newtown's bounds 
was proposed and outwardly accepted. This compromise 
temporarily delayed their removal. 

The fact is — and it is evident upon a close study of the 
conditions in Newtown at this time — that the town had 
received some new settlers in the ships of 1634, who were 
unwilling to locate permanently under such uncertainty. 
Either Newtown must remove, or these and other prospec- 
tive settlers would go elsewhere. Grants of land were made 
to most of them, but their lots were inferior, and the town's 
bounds were limited. There is evidence in the Cambridge 
land records that some of the new-comers did not erect 
upon their lots houses worthy of being so named. Thus 
they passed the "winter of their discontent." 

In the emigrant ships of 1635, others of the founders of 
Hartford arrived. The Elizabeth and Ann from London 
brought Clement Chaplin, John Holloway and Thomas 
Lord, while Mathew Marvin, William Ruscoe and John 
Warner were passengers in the Increase. Eight ships arrived 
during the first week of June. Some, who were early 
settlers in Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield, and who 

1 They were entertained, doubtless, by Jonathan Brewster, resident agent of 
the Plymouth Company at Windsor; and perhaps they visited the Dutch at the 
House of Hope. From the latter they would have received no encouragement. 
Brewster, in his letter of July C, 1635, speaks in a confusing way of a party — 
perhaps Windsor pioneers — which he assisted with canoes and guides. "They 
got me to goe with them," he says, "to ye Dutch, to see if I could procure some 
[land] of them to have quiet setling nere them; but they did peremtorily withstand 
them." Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation, p. 339. 



4 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

have left no trace of an earlier residence in Massachusetts, 
probably came in these ships. Arriving at a time when the 
Connecticut fever was at its height, they were ready to 
join in an enterprise that had among its leaders some of the 
best men in the Colony. 

Who were the brave pioneers of Hartford in 1635? When 
did they remove to Suckiaug, and where did they build 
their huts? No attempt has ever been made to answer 
these questions in detail. It is only possible to establish, 
in some particulars, a strong probability, based upon the 
harmony of correlated facts; but even such an answer may 
be worth while. 

On October 5, 1635, Rev. Thomas Shepard and his com- 
pany from England, arrived at Newtown. This is his 
statement: "Monday October 5, we came (being sent for 
by friends at Newtown,) to them, to my brother Mr. Stones 
house. And the congregation being upon their removal 
to Hartford, at Connecticut, myself and those that came 
with me, found many houses empty, and many persons 
willing to sell, and hence our company bought off their 
houses to dwell in." 1 There were, therefore, if this statement 
is taken literally, "many houses empty" on October 5th. 
Were these vacancies caused by the removal of families to 
Connecticut, as Shepard seems to imply? An answer to 
this question is found in the Cambridge land records. 

The Massachusetts General Court, on April 1, 1634, had 
ordered that all houses and lands be recorded within six 
months, and such record was to constitute evidence of 
estate. Hence this was necessary before an inhabitant 
could make a legal transfer of his home. At Newtown, 
they did not begin making such entries until May 1, 1635. 
Between that date and October 10th following, nearly all 
the emigrants to Connecticut complied with this order. 
Of these, twenty-four had done so before the arrival of 
Shepard; but on October 5th, nine did so, and on the 10th, 
nineteen. Only one is proved, by these records, to have 
sold before the above meeting at Samuel Stone's house — 
John Steele, who recorded his house and lands on August 
20th and sold on the 28th. There were, however, some, 

1 "Thomas Shepard's Memoir," in Young's Chronicles of Mass., p. 544. 



THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635 5 

who removed to other Massachusetts towns, that had done 
so; and others apparently removed and sold afterwards. 
In view of these circumstances, we conclude that the empty 
houses had not been occupied by emigrants to Connecticut. 
On the other hand, it seems, on the face of the record, that 
some of the latter had made their entries because they had 
agreed to sell, and that others were preparing to do so. 
Thomas Scott sold on the very day of Shepard's arrival. 
Stephen Hart recorded his lands on the 5th and sold on the 
7th. Others, who are thought to have removed to Con- 
necticut in 1635, probably did the same. Shepard testifies 
that he found many "willing to sell." Johnson, in his 
Wonder-working Providence, puts the case thus: "And 
therefore they onely waited now for a people of ftronger 
Faith then themfelves were to purchafe their Houfes and 
Land . . . and accordingly they met with Chapmen, a 
people new come, who having bought their poffeffions, 
they highed them away to their new Plantation." 

It is unfortunate that the records do not give the date 
when each emigrant sold his Newtown home, for the pre- 
sumption is that he removed at that time, or soon after- 
wards. However, we have, by inference, a record of those 
who had sold before February 8, 1635-6, and presumably 
did not spend that winter in Cambridge. On that date, 
the town took action restricting these sales, except on 
certain conditions. A list was then made of those who 
had houses that were accounted "houses of the town." l 
We find that those concerning whom we have evidence of 
a removal in 1635, are missing from it, and that those who 
are known to have accompanied Thomas Hooker in 1636, 
still retained their old homes. If we compare this list of 
householders with the former of recorded homes, we have 
another list that presumably includes all the house owners 
who removed to Suckiaug permanently in 1635. From 
this, we can erase the names of several who remained at 
Cambridge during the winter, or who were never North-side 
inhabitants of Hartford. We have thus a list, derived 
from the Cambridge records, composed of ten Hartford 
settlers, who are assumed to have emigrated thither in 

1 Records of the Town and Selectmen of Cambridge, 1901, pp. 17-19. 



6 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

1635. Their names may be arranged in the following 
order: Elder William Goodwin, John Steele, William 
Westwood, Thomas Scott, Stephen Hart, William Pantry, 
John Barnard, William Butler, William Kelsey and Nathan- 
iel Ely. We should add to this list, however, any who 
had only recorded land at Cambridge, and of whose removal 
in 1635 there is other evidence. Nicholas Clarke had only 
a small lot. He had sold or forfeited it and left Newtown 
before the above date. He is known to have spent the 
winter at Suckiaug. Richard Webb, Richard Goodman and 
Edward Elmer had recorded no houses. They are added 
upon evidence derived from the Hartford records. Two 
others may be added for the same reason. Mathew Marvin 
was a recent arrival, and we have no trace of his residence. 
Sergeant Thomas Stanley of Lynn was a deputy to the 
General Court, September 2, 1635, when the removal was 
decided. He was later fined at Lynn for absence. Let us, 
for the time, consider these sixteen early settlers of Hart- 
ford, as a tentative list of the pioneers of 1635. 

On the other hand, there is positive evidence, derived 
from records and correspondence, that some of these men 
did remove in 1635 to Suckiaug. Elder William Goodwin 
was evidently an enthusiastic advocate of the emigration. 
He was present at the General Court, September 3, 1634, 
when it was under consideration. Although he was "a 
very reverend and godly man," says Winthrop, he was so 
interested that he indulged in "some unreverend speech" 
in the discussion, for which he "humbly acknowledged his 
fault," but was, very likely, more than ever determined to 
change his residence. In his letter, written from Suckiaug 
to John Winthrop, Jr., on June 22, 1636, he says in a post- 
script: "I suppose you here by our brethren of the arriueal 
of our pastore," implying his own previous residence. In 
1639, moreover, he was one of those chosen to gather up 
for record the passages of God's providence that had been 
remarkable since the "first undertaking" of the plantation. 
Presumably he was thought to know about the experiences 
of 1635-6. 

The records of the General Court, held at Newtown, 
September 2, 1635, have the following entry: "William 



THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635 7 

Westwood is sworne constable of the plantacons att Connec- 
ticott till some other be chosen." The same court granted 
liberty to every town at Connecticut to choose constables 
and authorized magistrates to administer the oath of office. 
It also provided guns and ammunition for the plantations. 
Evidently this appointment of William Westwood was in 
anticipation of a removal to Suckiaug in the near future. 
Constables were then the proper civil officers for guard 
and defence. The emigrants had every reason to think 
they would be needed. 

The Commission for a provisional government of Con- 
necticut, issued in March 1635-6, rehearses the fact that 
some of the settlers were from Newtown and states that 
"divers are there already." The representatives of Suck- 
iaug were John Steele and William Westwood. If certain 
persons were already there, men of that number would 
certainly have been chosen for this service. 

Let us sum up our deductions, as we are about to leave 
Newtown with the pioneers. We know, from Shepard's 
statement, that the congregation there were, on October 
5, 1635, "upon their removal," a phrase that means, in other 
instances, "about to remove"; that the land records do not 
warrant the opinion that any of them had as yet set out; 
that, immediately upon Shepard's arrival and a meeting at 
Stone's house, some were in haste to record their houses 
and lands, which was necessary in order to sell; that some 
did sell at once, and a certain number had sold before mid- 
winter; that some of these had for a month been preparing 
to remove; and that certain of their leaders in church and 
state did actually go to Connecticut in 1635. If now we 
read in the journal of a contemporary historian that a 
party set out for Connecticut shortly after these prepara- 
tions and sales, and we find the settlers of our tentative 
list in the Hartford land records, living side by side in the 
oldest part of the plantation, which certainly was settled 
in 1635, we may fairly consider the case to be proved, as 
far as the circumstances admit. 

We come thus to that paragraph in Winthrop's journal, 
which has always been a bone of contention among the 
three river towns. Under the date October 15, 1635, he 



8 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

says: "About sixty men, women and little children, went 
by land toward Connecticut with their cows, horses, and 
swine, and, after a tedious and difficult journey, arrived 
safe there." J In view of the above examination of the 
records, there are good reasons for the claim, which we here 
make, that this entry refers to the Hartford pioneers. Such 
has been the opinion of some of our most accurate local 
historians, formed even without the above study of the 
original records. Historians of Windsor, however, have 
claimed that most of this company "were Dorchester people, 
joined by a few from Newtown and Watertown." 2 

The Dorchester people supplanted the Plymouth Com- 
pany, which had been at Windsor since September 16, 
1633, and which they bought out May 15, 1637. The 
pioneer party under Roger Ludlow arrived late in June, 
1635, or early in July. The Stiles party sailed from Boston 
June 26, 1635. On July 6th, Jonathan Brewster wrote from 
Windsor thus: "Ye Massachusetts men are coming almost 
dayly some by water & some by land." 3 He doubtless 
referred to these two parties. Besides some stragglers, there 
was another Dorchester company, which removed late in 
the season. Winthrop says their arrival was so late that 
some of their cattle "could not be put over the river," 
which was frozen up the 15th of November. 4 They had sent 
their provisions around by water in "barks," to which they 
endeavored to retreat when famine stared them in the face; 
"but not meeting them, they went aboard the Rebecka," 
which was frozen in the ice towards the river's mouth. 

This narrative relates to Windsor settlers, but it could 
hardly have referred to the emigrants who started on Oc- 
tober 15th, and "arrived safe there." The Windsor party 
did not arrive until after November 15th, when the river 
was frozen. The journey of the former company could not 
have required a month, especially as the lateness of the 
season urged them to haste. Thomas Hooker, with his 
encumbrances, only needed a "fortnight." If the Dor- 

1 Winthrop's History of New England, I, 204. 

2 Memorial History of Hartford County, I: 221; Stiles's History of Wethersfield, 
I: 21; Stiles's History of Windsor, I: 52 n. 

J Bradford's History, p. 338. 

* Winthrop's History, I: 208, 209. Cf. p. 219. 



THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635 9 

Chester company started late in October, there was time 
to make ready for winter under ordinary conditions of the 
weather, for they had reason to expect that the pioneers 
had provided ample shelter, and they had sent forward 
abundant provisions. In both expectations, they were 
disappointed — hence their disaster, in which there is no 
evidence that the pioneers of Hartford participated. 1 All 
these perplexing passages in Winthrop's narrative are 
harmonized by the conclusion — which we can hardly 
escape — that there were two companies that removed to 
Connecticut that autumn — one, from Newtown, starting 
October 15th, and another, later, following the Natick path, 
from Dorchester. This is confirmed by circumstances 
hereafter related. 

The membership of the pioneer company from Newtown 
is interesting and an important factor in the case. Nearly 
one-half of them were recent arrivals from England. The 
majority were young men, and several were unmarried. 
Their families were small. Judged by their after lives, 
they were a hardy and courageous company. Among 
them, were several who were classed later as wealthy settlers. 
Their religious leader was the elder of their church, a per- 
sonal friend of Thomas Hooker and a man to whose judg- 
ment large concerns in church and state were intrusted. 
John Steele and William Westwood were considered suitable 
men to be made magistrates, and proved themselves worthy 
of the honor. In the judgment of the wise, it was necessary 
for some to go forward to prepare the way, and there was 
at least a tacit agreement, to which the ministers were a 
party, that others would follow the next season. Surely 
this company had some qualifications for the task to which 
they devoted themselves. As those who had severed their 
relations with Newtown probably took their families with 
them, there were in this party, to the best of our knowledge, 
about fifty persons — men, women and children. 

1 The pioneers of Windsor were doubtless handicapped by their land difficul- 
ties, and so were prevented from securing winter fodder for their cattle and build- 
ing more than a few "dug-outs." It is believed that they did not begin to lay out 
their first lots until September. Mathew Grant testified, April 21, 1675, that he 
measured and set out their lots "from our [their] firft beginning," which "come 
nixt September is 40 yere." State Archives, Private Controversies, I: 138. 



10 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

It was doubtless during the last days of October that 
the pioneers of Hartford reached their destination. They 
found at Suckiaug only a group of Indian wigwams north of 
the Little River, and the Dutch at the House of Hope. 
The former were located, it is believed, on the tract of land 
west of the North Meadow creek. The Little Meadow 
extended westward from the Connecticut River to the line 
of the woodland. 

The first English settlers at Suckiaug seem to have done 
the most natural thing in arranging their house-lots. Be- 
ginning at the northern end, they made divisions along the 
border line of the woodland as far south as the Little River. 
There, it is thought, the Indian trail ran. The houses 
eventually erected upon these lots thus faced the open 
meadow, with the Great River beyond. Along, in front 
of their homes, they soon widened the trail into a roadway. 
This highway was called the "Road from the Little River 
to the North Meadow." It was the first stage in the 
development of Front Street. The ridge of the hill behind 
their houses, was some distance westward and ran about 
parallel with their road. At its northern end was a mound 
or hill, coming gradually to a summit, which, very likely, 
had been used by the natives as a lookout, or for defence. 
It was called by the English "Centinel Hill." A path would 
naturally run from the Indian village up the slope to it, 
which became the "Road from Centinel Hill to the North 
Meadow," our present Village Street. At first it ran 
through Robert Day's lot. From this hill, they made a 
roadway southward along the ridge to the Little River, 
where they designed to erect their palisado or fort. Perhaps 
they found an Indian trail leading from the hill to the falls, 
which must have been a famous fishing place for the natives 
and offered the whites a mill site. This highway was called 
the "Road from Centinel Hill to the Palisado," and is now 
Main Street. About midway, they arranged for a public 
field or square, where to build their meeting-house. A 
road ran thence eastward, which was called the "Road from 
the Meeting House to the Little Meadow" or "to the 
Great River." This was the extent of their occupation and 
development. It was sufficient for their immediate needs. 



THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635 11 

There is no doubt that this section is the oldest part of 
Hartford. It was the Suckiaug of the pioneers. Here 
they built their first huts or "dug-outs," and spent the 
winter of 1635-6. 

Who were the original owners of house-lots within this 
section? The land records tell us. The answer is found on 
Porter's "Plan of Hartford in 1640." If we go southward 
along Front Street from the Indian village, using our type 
to point out the sixteen pioneers, the owners were: Mathew 
Allyn, Nicholas Clarke, Mathew Marvin, Stephen Hart, 
William Weshvood, John Barnard, William Butler, John 
Stone, Timothy Stanley, Edward Stebbins, Thomas Scott, 
William Pantry, James Olmsted and Richard Webb. In 
like manner, going southward along Main Street, the 
owners were: William Kelsey, Robert Day, Nathaniel Ely, 
Edward Elmer, John Talcott, William Lewis, Richard Good- 
man, Clement Chaplin, John Steele, Sergeant Thomas Stanley 
west of the highway, and Elder William Goodwin east of it. 
Two lots facing Little River seem to have been reserved for 
their ministers, Thomas Hooker and Samuel Stone. 

Most of these names are familiar. Here are all the 
sixteen pioneers of our tentative list. We have some 
reasons to believe that they were a company of emigrants 
seeking a new home in Connecticut; and here we find them 
at Suckiaug, settled close together in a compact body for 
mutual assistance and defence; on the one side, their 
Indian friends, and on the other, their palisado, beside an 
abundant stream, offering a serious warning to the Dutch- 
men living south of it, in the House of Hope. 

There are, however, among these pioneers, nine others 
who are new acquaintances. They had not sold their 
homes at Newtown February 8, 1635-6. It is believed 
that all of them were in the company of Thomas Hooker 
in 1636. Several of them are known to have been in Cam- 
bridge during the winter or spring. How then, if our theory 
is correct, did they apparently secure these house-lots thus 
early, interspersed as they are, at random among the lots 
of the pioneers? We can only offer a conjectural answer 
to this question, for which, however, there are some good 
reasons. They accompanied the emigrating party of 1635, 



12 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

to assist in establishing them, intending to return before 
the winter set in, and, being present or represented at the 
first meeting of Suckiaug planters, they received an allot- 
ment with the others. 

There is no doubt that the Hartford land records recog- 
nize certain Newtown emigrants as "Adventurers." This 
term is probably applied here, as in other instances, to those 
who, through an occupation earlier than the town's legal 
title, secured a right to land. A tract in Hartford, compris- 
ing about thirty-five acres, and hereafter located, was 
divided among certain settlers and was called in the records 
"Adventurers' Field." The original owners were: John 
Steele, William Westwood, Thomas Scott, Stephen Hart, 
William Pantry, John Barnard, Richard Webb, Richard 
Goodman, Mathew Marvin, Thomas Stanley, James Olm- 
sted and John Talcott. Nathaniel Ely was the original 
owner of the Brick-kiln lot of six and one-half acres, virtually 
a part of this tract. The mill tract south of it was given 
to Mathew Allyn. The first six of these names immediately 
follow that of William Goodwin in our tentative list of 
pioneers. The next four win their title to a place in it by 
their grants in this tract. James Olmsted and John Talcott 
were householders in Cambridge during the winter. The 
former may have been represented among the adventurers 
by his son Nicholas Olmsted. John Talcott was in Cam- 
bridge early in the spring. His house at Suckiaug, however, 
was erected in the winter of 1635-6. The memorandum 
book of his son, Lieutenant-Colonel John Talcott, has the 
following entry: "The kitchen, that now stands on the 
north side of the house that I live in, was the first house 
that my father built in Hartford, in Conn, colony, and was 
done by Nicholas Clark, the first winter that any English- 
man rought or built in Hartford, which was in the year 
1635." 1 This evidence indicates that John Talcott may 
have accompanied the pioneers, secured his lot, arranged 
for the erection of a house and returned later in the season. 
Nicholas Clarke, however, had no grant in Adventurers' 
Field, or the two special tracts south of it. Neither had 
Goodwin, Butler, Kelsey and Elmer of our tentative list, 

1 Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 263. 



THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635 13 

nor six others who are supposed to have secured house-lots 
in 1635. These also would have had a right of prior occu- 
pation and an adventurer's proportion. As Talcott and 
Olmsted were also adventurers, others may have been. 
We conclude, therefore, that this particular tract, being of 
limited extent, did not provide for all. Across the highway 
northwest of these lots, was Little Ox Pasture. The original 
grantees in its eastern tier of lots, beginning at the high- 
way and going north, were: William Butler, William 
Hayden, Richard Goodman, Edward Elmer, Robert Day, 
Nicholas Clarke and Nathaniel Ely. Perhaps some of the 
adventurers preferred these larger lots. The name of 
William Hayden in this company may indicate that he 
also was a pioneer, for he had a house-lot near them. Wil- 
liam Goodwin received an extensive grant in the South 
Meadow, which was an exception to the rule of distribution, 
as he was a North-side inhabitant. Edward Stebbins and 
W T illiam Kelsey were original owners in a large tract called 
"Middle Ox Pasture." John Stone removed early to Guil- 
ford and Clement Chaplin settled in Wethersfield. No 
one of those early settlers lacked for land, but what special 
grant may have been made to them, we do not know. A 
large latitude of choice was certainly allowed them, to suit 
their needs. 

There seems, also, to be confirmatory evidence that the 
above solution is correct in the case of Clement Chaplin. 
He secured one of the best house-lots among the pioneers, 
but he did not settle upon it. During the winter he was 
at Cambridge, being present at a town meeting in February, 
and probably removed in Hooker's company, but went 
directly, it is believed, to Wethersfield to settle. In 1639, 
he was one of those chosen by the General Court to make 
a record of the "first undertaking" of the plantations. 
On January 14, 1639-40, the town of Hartford, on account 
of his absence, appointed a committee to "Deall w th m r 
Chaplin aboute his [lands, that] are fforfeted into the Towns 
hands," but without any results. They were recorded to 
him in 1644, and afterwards sold by him or his widow. 
We can only account for this unusual procedure on the 
assumption that he claimed to have secured a right by 



14 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

occupation in 1635, before the inhabitants had any* title 
under the Warwick Patent, as they thought, or had pur- 
chased the lands from the Indians. As the pioneers, albeit 
they were adventurers, were all squatters, this was too 
delicate a matter under the circumstances to argue with a 
dissenting party. 1 The town likewise made exceptions in 
the cases of William Butler and Nicholas Olmsted. The 
latter inherited his father's house-lot. 

There was a company of men, whose names are unknown, 
who returned to the Bay late that autumn. Under the 
date November 26, 1635, Winthrop made the following 
entry: "There came twelve men from Connecticut. They 
had been ten days upon their journey, and had lost one of 
their company, drowned in the ice by the way; and had 
been all starved, but that, by God's providence, they 
lighted upon an Indian wigwam. Connecticut River was 
frozen up the 15th of this month." 2 This party started 
to return on the 16th, the day after the river was frozen 
up. It could not, therefore, have been composed of Dor- 
chester people, who arrived too late to get their cattle 
across, unless we suppose that they immediately abandoned 
their herds and started back overland. Nor is it likely 
that any Windsor pioneers would set out to return on the 
eve of expected arrivals and the coming of barks loaded 
with provisions. This party was composed wholly of men. 
That is a significant fact. We do not believe that there 
were any men in Windsor, who would desert the women and 
children of that plantation under circumstances that so 
soon resulted in disaster. It is here claimed, without any 
hesitation, that this party of men was composed of New- 
town emigrants, who had accompanied the pioneers to assist 
them in preparing winter quarters and erecting a palisado 
for defence in need, with the prior intention of returning 

1 Clement Chaplin is one of the personal enigmas of our local history. He was 
evidently a leader and a man of ability. In Wethersfield he became the "proud 
and wealthy ruling elder" of the church, and was a cause of much trouble. His 
desertion of the Newtown company, and his subsequent experiences, lead one to 
suspect that he was an ardent champion of ecclesiastical rights and privileges, which 
may have been a reason for his settlement in Wethersfield and the factional dis- 
putes in which he was engaged. 

2 Winthrop's History, I: 207. 



THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635 15 

to their former homes. On the day after the river was 
closed, they set out in haste, taking too little provision 
from the pioneers' store. One of the unlucky thirteen — 
perhaps a servant and unknown by name — was drowned 
in attempting to cross somewhere on the ice. Along the 
trail, they lost their way and were rescued by the host of 
an Indian wigwam. 

If there were, as Winthrop states, "about sixty men, 
women and little children" in the original pioneer com- 
pany, the number of those who returned, with the fifty 
already accounted for, would make the party complete. 
An opinion as to the identity of those who remained at 
Suckiaug during that winter of hardship, can only be based 
upon the assumption that those would be most likely to do 
so who had sold their homes in Newtown or had no ties to 
call them back. Upon the best evidence that the records 
afford, their names are included in the list of sixteen who 
are called pioneers. 

It was doubtless during the interval between the arrival 
of this company and the return of their friends, that the 
formal beginning of the North-side Plantation was made. 
If we assume that they proceeded in the usual way, they 
met, chose a moderator of the meeting and passed such 
votes as their present needs required. They would, natu- 
rally, vote that every inhabitant should have a house-lot, 
and a due proportion of meadow, pasturage and woodland. 
Probably they made a division of house-lots only that season. 
Thus they began their plantation. 

The first labor of these pioneers was to prepare their dug- 
outs in the hillside and provide some rude shelter for their 
cattle. This was not a great task for hardy woodsmen; 
nor were such homes uncomfortable. 1 Probably they did 
not suffer from the cold during the winter. They had fire 

1 The following description of a settler's dug-out has been given by Mr. Jabez 
H. Hayden of Windsor: "Beginning a few feet below the brow of the hill, they 
excavated a space the size of the proposed house, throwing up the earth at the 
sides and west end. On the embankment thus made, they laid a plate, on which 
they rested the foot of the rafters. Where stone was convenient, a wall was laid 
under the plate, but as stone was scarce here they must have dispensed with it. 
Instead of shingle, the roof was thatched with a course of wild grass. The east 
end was probably made from 'clove' boards, i.e., boards cloven or split from short 
logs and hewn into shape. Only the east end and roof of these structures appeared 



16 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

pits within and plenty of wood. The flood of the spring, 
however, brought some of them trouble. Stephen Hart 
and Mathew Marvin, who had located at the northern end 
of Front Street, found themselves inundated, if we may 
so interpret their early selection of other house-lots on the 
"Road to the Neck." 1 Their great hardship arose from 
the scarcity of food for themselves and fodder for their 
cattle. Provisions had, no doubt, been provided in advance 
and sent around by water, as the custom was. 2 Such supplies 
usually prove to be insufficient. The pioneers of all the 
river plantations suffered for lack of food, as they did also 
for several winters thereafter. Some subsisted upon acorns. 
Still they had many reasons for thankfulness. The two 
great dangers, with which their removal had been threatened, 
did not arise. The Indians were friendly and helpful, and 
the Dutch were peacefully hibernating in the House of Hope. 
So the palisado, which they had made on the bank of the 
Little River, whither to seek refuge in an attack, was never 
a memorable place of warfare about which the whoop of 
the savage was heard. No event in Hartford's early history 
was ever associated with it. There it lingered for a few 
years, on its way to decay. The only fancy we can enter- 
tain concerning it is, that there within its log house, as 
their only public meeting place during the wearisome 
winter, Elder William Goodwin, their leader, standing in 
the place of his friend Thomas Hooker, gathered those brave 
pioneers to conduct the simple Puritan service of worship. 
At last, the scattered snow melted on the hillsides. 
Around their huts, the bluebirds were seen. The flood 
of the Great River came, and it was spring in Connecticut. 
Then they came forth into the reviving hope of a new 
world. 

above ground." Stiles's Hist, of Windsor, I: 33. See also Early Connecticut 
Houses, by Isham and Brown, pp. 12, 13. 

1 Stephen Hart had, when his land was recorded, "One parcell on which his 
dwellinge house once stood," and also "One parcell on which his dwellinge house 
now standeth with other outhouses, yards and gardens." Original Distribution, 
p. 190, in Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll. Vol. XIV. Mathew Marvin had, beside the lot on 
which his dwelling house was standing, "one parcell for a house lott in the necke of 
land." Ibid., pp. 89, 90. 

2 Winthrop's History, I: 207. 



CHAPTER II 
SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT 

The title "Warwick Patent" has been applied to that 
patent which Robert, Earl of Warwick, has been thought 
to have received from the Council for New England, by 
virtue of which he made a grant, March 19, 1631, to certain 
lords and gentlemen of England, of the territory now in- 
cluded in Connecticut. The discussion of the patent itself, 
and its validity, is left to others. 1 We are concerned, 
merely, with the use the founders of the river plantations 
made of it. There is no doubt that, late in the winter of 
1635-6, an understanding was effected between the emigrants 
and the representatives of the Warwick patentees, for the 
establishment of the river towns under the patent's favor. 
This agreement resulted, not only in some conditions 
affecting Connecticut's early government, to be considered 
hereafter, but also in certain plans and proceedings in the 
settlement of Hartford, which it is now our purpose to 
bring out into the light. 

The season of 1635 at Windsor had been one of contention 
between the Dorchester pioneers, under Roger Ludlow, the 
Plymouth Trading Company, and the party of Francis 
Stiles. The traders of Plymouth had been tenants of the 
land since 1633, and claimed rights of prior settlement. 
The Stiles party came to occupy the land in behalf of the 
patentees. They were virtually crowded out by the aggres- 
sive pioneers. The patentees protested when they learned 
the facts. Lord Saye and Sele wrote that the emigrants 
had "carved largely for themselves," and would repent 
when they saw what helps they had deprived themselves of. 
He was doubtless right. At least, they did recede from the 
position they had taken in the early ardor of their venture. 

1 The Warwick Patent, by Dr. Charles J. Hoadly, Acorn Club Publications, 1902; 
Connecticut's Warwick Patent, by Forrest Morgan, 1910; Connecticut Colonial 
Records, I: 568-572; Connecticut as a Colony, I: 65 ff. 



18 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Most of them, as it happened, driven out by starvation, 
returned to Dorchester in the Rebecca, arriving there on 
December 10th. There they had occasion to reconsider 
their hostile course. 

The patentees had also, on July 8, 1635, commissioned 
John Winthrop, Jr., to build a fort and erect houses at the 
mouth of the Connecticut River. He was empowered to 
be the governor of their territory for one year. 1 He arrived 
at Boston in the Abigail early in October. Within a few 
weeks, he sent a party to Saybrook to begin the design, 
just in time to anticipate the Dutch. The governor himself 
did not go thither until the next spring. 

There had come with him from England, Mr. Henry 
Vane, Jr., son of the King's comptroller, and Rev. Hugh 
Peters, a somewhat famous minister, who was the step- 
father of Winthrop's wife. These three had been con- 
stituted the representatives of the Warwick patentees. 
They had orders from Lord Saye and Sele, to treat with the 
Massachusetts magistrates and "those who were to go to 
Connecticut," as to the relation of the river plantations to 
the patentees' authority and plans. The pioneers of Suck- 
iaug had set out in haste shortly after Winthrop's arrival, 
before anything was done, going thither without any other 
government than was provided in the choice of a constable. 
As Thomas Hooker, and other leaders of Newtown, had 
not as yet removed, the circumstances were favorable for 
all parties to consider matters involved in the general 
emigration that was contemplated the following season. 
This discussion was continued at intervals during the 
winter of 1635-6. 

One fact, of paramount importance to the river planta- 
tions, thrust this subject upon their attention. The pa- 
tentees then positively declared that the river settlements 
were outside of the Massachusetts patent and within the 
territory they themselves claimed. Their representatives 
— Vane, Peters and Winthrop — put the following ques- 
tions to all the emigrating towns, and especially to the 
Dorchester people: 

1 Winthrop's History, I: £02, 203; Trumbull's History of Connecticut, I: 497, 
498. 



SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT 19 

"Imprimis, whether they do acknowledge the rights and 
claims of the said persons of quality, and in testimony 
thereof will and do submit to the counsel and direction of 
their present governour, Mr. John Winthrop the younger, 
established by commission from them in those parts." 

"Secondly, under what right and pretence they have 
lately taken up their plantations within the precincts fore- 
mentioned, and what government they intend to live under, 
because the said country is out of the claim of the Massa- 
chusetts patent." 

"Item, what answer and reasons we may return to the 
said patentees, if the said towns intend to intrench upon 
their rights and privileges, and justify the same." 1 

This declaration of the patentees' jurisdiction placed the 
emigrants in a very embarrassing position. They could 
not deny the claim. Already, they had themselves suspected 
that they were outside of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, 
and were glad to believe it. There were, moreover, 
no good grounds upon which they could justify the 
rights and privileges that their pioneer companies had 
already assumed. Yet they were challenged, somewhat 
peremptorily, for an answer. No doubt important and 
interesting conferences followed. If they were conducted 
according to the expressed wishes of the representatives, 
they were "with as much secrecy as may be." Points were 
certainly raised that could not be settled, except by corre- 
spondence with the patentees themselves, who were in Eng- 
land. Dr. Hoadly says that "Hooker corresponded with 
Lord Saye and Sele." It surely developed that the patentees 
were not hostile to the emigration. At one time, says the 
same authority, Sir Richard Saltonstall himself "proposed 
to build at Hartford and join with Mr. Hooker, who, as he 
knew, was intending to remove thither." This correspond- 
ence was not finished in March when the Commission for a 
provisional government was issued, as that document itself 
states. The representatives were sufficiently assured, how- 
ever, of the patentees' wishes to proceed to an agreement 
with the emigrants to Connecticut. 

The leaders among the removing towns must have seen, 

1 Winthrop's History, I: 477, 478. 



20 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

at once, that they could only secure title to their lands 
under the Warwick Patent. It was inevitable under the 
circumstances. This of itself was not so objectionable to 
them. It was rather a "help," as one of the patentees had 
stated. The sequel proved it to be such. If we may 
reason, however, from the conclusion, there was one condi- 
tion, pointedly stated in the above declaration, to which 
objection was made. It was the required submission to the 
government, set up by the authority of the patentees. 
Allegiance was required to a governor, unobjectionable in 
himself, in the choice of whom the settlers had no voice. 
We cannot imagine that Roger Ludlow would accept any 
such provision. He would rather remain in Massachusetts. 
The flaunting of this claim of governmental rights in his 
face at Windsor, had doubtless been one reason why his 
company had carved so largely for themselves. Much less 
would this principle have been acceptable to Thomas 
Hooker. It would have destroyed all present hopes of 
securing such a government as he is supposed to have already 
seen in his visions. Surely it was radically opposed to his 
ideas subsequently expressed, and embodied in Connecti- 
cut's early constitutional government. This feature, it is 
believed, was the leading subject of correspondence with 
the patentees. There are indications, too, that their views, 
when ascertained, were found to be in harmony with those 
held by the settlers. It seems impossible that a settle- 
ment could have been made, as it was, had they been 
opposed. 

Thus an understanding was arrived at, late in the winter 
of 1635-6. A tentative agreement was made between the 
parties, which was embodied in the Commission for a pro- 
visional government, as hereafter set forth. This agree- 
ment was, in fact, a compromise, in which the emigrants 
agreed to settle under the Warwick Patent, and the patentees 
made over to the colonists their rights of government. 
Under this, both parties acquired benefits. The patentees 
needed colonists to make good their claim to the lands. 
They were far-sighted enough to see that actual settlement 
would be recognized as the strongest support of their patent 
claims, as, indeed, the sequel proved. They were not so 



SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT 21 

particular about government. Certainly they had no reason 
to be, if they knew that what they had, if anything, was 
only "a deed of feoffment" in the lands. On the other 
hand, the emigrants from Massachusetts, since they were 
going outside of that colony's patent, needed some legal 
standing in their claim to the lands they intended to settle. 
To secure it, they were willing to take what was offered by 
the lords and gentlemen in England, so long as it left them 
free to conduct their own government. By this compro- 
mise, therefore, each party secured what was considered 
most advantageous to its own interests. 

As to the fact that the removal of 1636 was conducted 
under the patronage of the patentees, there is no doubt. 
Concerning these settlers, Johnson, in his quaint history, 
says: "Being out of the Mattachufets Patten, they erected 
another Government, called by the Indian name, Canectico, 
being farther incouraged by two honorable perfonages, the 
Lord Say, and Lord Brookes." x On June 7, 1661, when 
the Colony sought the favor of Lord Saye and Sele in secur- 
ing a charter, it addressed him in a letter as follows: "The 
former encouragements that our fathers, and some of their 
yet surviving associates, received from your honor to trans- 
plant themselves and families into these inland parts of 
this vast wilderness, where (as we have been given to under- 
stand) your honor was, and as we conceive and hope are still 
interested, by virtue of patent power and authority, doth 
not only persuade us, but assure us of your patronage and 
favor." 2 

This need of a patent right to the lands was especially 
urgent, in view of the future relation of Newtown's planta- 
tion to the Dutch, at the House of Hope. It gave them, 
as they believed, a good title to the lands they wanted. 
Perhaps they thought that they would thus acquire some- 
thing more in the privileges, which patents were sometimes 
supposed to include. It would, at least, bring them under 
the protection of England and be good as colonists, as 
against the claims of the Dutch. Perhaps special interest 
attaches to Winthrop's record, that, in January, "one went 

1 Johnson's Wonder-icorkmg Providence, p. 76. 

2 Trumbull's Hist, of Connecticut, I: 513, 514. 



22 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

by land to Connecticut and returned safe." Was he a 
messenger to the Suckiaug pioneers, carrying information, 
which it was important they should have, before they had 
committed themselves to the Dutch? No man would have 
taken that journey alone, and in the dead of winter, except 
in an emergency. Hitherto, the settlers from Newtown 
had not entered upon the land south of the Little River, 
which the Dutch claimed. There is no evidence that they 
intended to do so. The pioneers of 1635 had established 
their plantation, laid out their house-lots and planned 
their divisions of land, apparently with the expectation that 
the main body to follow would be associated with them. 
The acquisition of rights under the patent entirely altered 
and greatly improved their prospects. They had thus 
secured a reasonable ground for claiming the land south of 
the Little River. They had only to enter in and possess it. 
This, then, was the situation that presented itself to the 
Newtown emigrants in the spring of 1636. 

There was one other matter that compelled their im- 
mediate attention. It was general among New England 
colonists to purchase their lands from the native owners. 
The pioneers had entered upon their claim without any 
such purchase, though perhaps they had made a verbal 
treaty with the Indians. A conveyance was necessary. 
They would be at a disadvantage without it, notwithstand- 
ing the patent, if they attempted to occupy any part of the 
land claimed by the Dutch. Lord Saye and Sele has him- 
self mentioned the object of such a purchase. He has 
also stated the fact in the following language: "Many of 
the English (his Majesty's Subjects) having been incor- 
porated by his Majesty's letters patent, and having, in 
order to obviate all difficulties, purchased the land from the 
natives, the acknowledged and right owners thereof, es- 
tablished divers factories on the river." ! His lordship 
made this statement in connection with the controversy 
with the Dutch; nor could it have applied to any other 
plantation than Newtown. It seems, therefore, to have 
been the plan of Hooker's company, having effected an 
arrangement with the patentees, and secured a Commission 

1 "Holland Documents," in Doc. Rel. to the Colonial History of Xew York, I: 1£8- 



SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT 23 

for a provisional government, to purchase the land from 
the Indians. They could then assert their right by patent 
and purchase to all the land between Windsor and Wethers- 
field, including that occupied by the Dutch. The sequel 
shows that such a claim was made before Hooker arrived, 
and, in due time, the majority of the settlers of 1636 located 
on the land south of the Little River. 

The counter claims made by the Dutch will be examined 
more minutely hereafter. It is sufficient, here, to define 
their boundaries. As stated in their own records, they 
claimed the "flat extending about one league down along 
the river, and one-third of a league in width to the high 
land, and beyond the hill upwards, being a flat extending 
to the next adjoining little stream." * Another version 
informs us that the "one league down along the river," was 
measured "across through the wood." In this direction 
were their "bouwerie" or garden, hay land and wood lot. 
The "next adjoining little stream" was Folly Brook. It 
was "about one league" from this brook northward to the 
"Kill" [creek] or Little River. Beyond this the tract 
extended a "musket shot" up Connecticut River, thus 
including the land projecting southward, since known as 
"Dutch Point." This low land was directly east of the 
House of Hope. The northern boundary of the Dutch- 
men's claim, therefore, was the Little River, and a line 
projected eastward from its bend across to the Connecticut 
River. 

The original conveyance, from the Indians to the founders 
of Hartford, has long since disappeared. The deed by 
which Sequassen's successors, in 1670, confirmed it, contains 
one statement that has an important bearing on the sequence 
of events and the settlement that was made under the 
Warwick Patent. It states that the original purchase was 
made by Mr. Samuel Stone and Mr. William Goodwin 
"about the yeare sixteen hundred thirty-six." Dr. Trum- 
bull says "in 1635 or 1636." The English repeatedly 
asserted, in their controversy with the Dutch, that they 
had purchased the disputed lands before their settlement 
upon them. There is no reason to deny this statement. 

1 Ibid., II: 139, 140; Mem. Hist. oJHartford County, I: 13. 



24 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

The above words of Lord Saye and Sele confirm it. If 
we admit it, however, the query is suggested, in view of 
the circumstances, whether this purchase was not made 
early in the spring, just before or just after the begin- 
ning of the year, old style. If it was, then Rev. Samuel 
Stone removed to Suckiaug early that season, perhaps 
with the intention of making such a purchase before 
the arrival of Hooker's company, his associate in that 
business, Elder Goodwin, being already there. Let us 
consider the circumstances that are reconciled by this 
supposition. The reader must judge whether the evidence 
warrants its acceptance as a fact. 

There was a Newtown party that removed to Suckiaug 
early in the spring of 1636. Historians of repute have 
made this statement. The documentary evidence concerns, 
principally, John White and Samuel Wakeman. The 
former was a prominent settler. He was, later, chosen 
ruling elder of the Second Church of Christ. He sold his 
home at Newtown, October 20, 1635, and was then of that 
town. When he executed a conveyance of land, however, on 
May 30, 1636, he was "of the New Towne vppo Quinetuc- 
quet River." As Thomas Hooker's company did not start 
until May 31st, John White certainly removed before that 
date and probably early in the season. Samuel Wakeman 
was sworn constable of Newtown plantation, April 26, 
1636. There is no trace of his presence among the pioneers. 
He was probably a recent arrival. As to Samuel Stone, 
he had sold his Newtown home before February 8, 1635-6, 
to Roger Harlackenden, Esq., of Shepard's company. 
Although we know of no evidence of his subsequent resi- 
dence there, he doubtless spent the winter in Cambridge, 
in the performance of his duties. Winthrop does not 
mention his departure with Thomas Hooker's company, 
nor does Goodwin note his arrival with the pastor. Yet he 
was actively connected with the emigrants' plans in the 
removal. At his house the meeting with Shepard's com- 
pany was held, and, on several occasions later, he repre- 
sented the settlers in an executive capacity. This is 
admitted to be negative evidence, of little value considered 
alone. It surely would have been a natural and wise pro- 



SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT 25 

cedure, under the circumstances, to send Samuel Stone 
early in the spring to Suckiaug, with John White, Samuel 
Wakeman and perhaps others. They intended to inaugurate 
the provisional government at once. Its first court was 
held April 26th. John Winthrop, Jr., set out in March, to 
assume his responsibilities at Saybrook. It must have 
been evident that the declaration of their rights under the 
patent could not wait upon their convenience. The issue 
with the Dutch rested entirely with the Newtown emi- 
grants. Neither Windsor nor Wethersfield had any claim 
to advance to the land south of the Little River. The 
pioneers were well settled on the north-side. It naturally 
devolved upon some one from Newtown, with a show of 
authority, to advance their claim under the patent, and, 
"to obviate all difficulties," the purchase of the land from 
the natives was necessary. 

These are not the only circumstances that lead to such a 
conclusion. We have evidence that the English had, 
before Hooker's arrival, asserted their patent rights, and 
had presumably taken such action under them that the 
Dutch made a formal protest against them as trespassers. 
On June 22, 1636, Elder William Goodwin, dating his letter 
from Suckiaug, wrote to Governor John Winthrop, Jr., 
at Saybrook fort, as follows: "I am requested by our 
neighbores the Dutchmen to mind you of what you willed 
me to tell them, viz., that if they thought good to call to 
you as they went out [of the river] with ther sloope (and did 
desire so much of you) you would then giue them answer in 
wryteing to ther protest. The Sirgion is now going to ther 
plantation [Manhattan] and meaneth to come to you about 
it, and desired me to signifie so much vnto your worship, 
which is all I haue at this tyme." The postscript of this 
letter advises Winthrop of the arrival of Hooker. 1 

It is clear that the protest of the Dutch had been made 
some time before Goodwin wrote as above. He and Win- 
throp had met at Saybrook or Suckiaug, or information 
concerning the protest had been transmitted to Winthrop, 
and an answer had been returned. Apparently also the 
Dutch had been waiting some time, for a convenient occa- 

1 k Ser. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., VII: 44. 



26 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

sion to call at Saybrook fort as they went out of the river 
in their sloop. Moreover, the protest had doubtless been 
called forth by some overt act of settlement on the part of 
the English. It would seem that they had entered upon the 
land that the Dutch claimed, and had justified their act on 
the ground that they had rights there under the Warwick 
Patent, and by purchase from the Indians. This situation 
alone would have made it proper for the Suckiaug settlers 
to refer the matter to Governor Winthrop, the regent under 
the patentee, and for the Dutch to seek from him an answer 
to their protest, in writing, to be forwarded, no doubt, on 
their arrival at Manhattan, to their superiors of the West 
India Company. The Dutch had made no protest against 
the occupation of the land north of the Little River. It 
was outside of their bounds. Entrance by another party 
upon their land, held for years by occupancy and purchase, 
was quite a different matter. It seems almost to have been 
a part of the program, previously arranged between the 
settlers and Governor Winthrop at Saybrook, that the 
issue should be forced early in the season — an issue foreseen 
and unavoidable, if their rights under the Warwick Patent, 
in which, we do not doubt, they honestly trusted, were of 
any value. 

Is there any evidence of an overt act of settlement upon 
the Dutchmen's land, which would call forth this protest? 
The Hartford land records seem to give us an answer. If 
John WTiite and Samuel Wakeman were like all other plant- 
ers, their first concern was to secure eligible house-lots for 
themselves. They could have done so among the pioneers 
north of the Little River. There was land enough and to 
spare, as desirable as any that had been chosen. We do 
not find them there. As already stated, one of the princi- 
pal highways of the pioneers' settlement was the "Road 
from the Little River to the North Meadow," now named 
Front Street. At its southern end, there was a fordway, 
crossing the Little River. It is here that we find the two 
emigrants, who had arrived in the spring of 1636, settled 
on the South-side, making a beginning of that plantation. 
John White is on the east side of the path or road to Weth- 
ersfield, and Samuel Wakeman on the west side, beyond 



SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT 27 

William Hills, who occupied the corner lot. Apparently, 
these adventurous scouts had boldly, and with design, 
crossed the Little River, and settled on the Dutchmen's 
land. They doubtless believed that they had a lawful 
right there, and considered it their own promised Canaan. 
Samuel Wakeman was soon sworn constable. Under the 
circumstances, it was a suitable residence for an officer of 
defence. We may even suspect that it was his post of 
danger, in case of trouble with the Dutch, that suggested 
his appointment. Yet this settlement on the Dutchmen's 
land was precisely what some of Thomas Hooker's company 
intended to do, and did, upon their arrival. It did not mat- 
ter how soon the issue was made. They could not settle 
under the Warwick Patent and avoid it. 

If, therefore, these two settlers did locate their lots 
within the Dutchmen's claim, with William Hills and 
possibly others, in the spring of 1636, thus giving good 
reasons for the above protest, and it is true, as the English 
afterward asserted, that they had purchased the land from 
the Indians before any such settlement was made, then 
Samuel Stone, who, with William Goodwin, bought the 
land, must have been a member of this springtime 
company. 

The reader, who has a sense of the humorous, can hardly 
suppress a smile at this exhibition of the traditional shrewd- 
ness of the Connecticut Yankee, in the character of our 
forefathers. The patentees had forced them into a position 
where they were obliged to accept settlement under the 
Warwick Patent. They did so, without incurring any 
obligation of allegiance to the patentees' governor. And 
yet, these settlers, either by design or chance, at once made 
an issue with their neighbors, that could only be defended 
on the ground of a superior patent right. When the Dutch 
made a protest against them as trespassers, they received 
it with equanimity, and referred them to His Excellency at 
Saybrook fort, while they went calmly about their business 
of ploughing and sowing the Dutchmen's fields. 

The English occupied and divided among themselves the 
land south of the Little River, where they founded the 
South-side Plantation. They allowed their neighbors to 



28 THE COLOXIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

continue in possession of such parcels as they had put to 
use. There the matter was allowed to rest for a time. 
We do not know of any better statement of the case than 
has been given by an early Dutch writer in the following 
language: "It finally came to pass that they [the English] 
arrived on the above-mentioned river in the years 1635 and 
1636, with numbers of families and cattle, established them- 
selves there, far and near, even on the land situate around 
and by our fort, and belonging to us, which land they have 
divided among themselves, endeavoring to prescribe laws 
to us, because they, having built a house or two at the mouth 
of the river pretended thereby to have the key thereof." l 

Here we lose sight of their differences, until 1639, and 
our story is continued in a later chapter. The patentees 
were not allowed to forget their responsibilities toward the 
river plantations. In 1642, Lord Saye and Sele, Sir Richard 
Saltonstall, and the Earl of Warwick, came loyally to the 
assistance of the colonists in the defence of their rights. 
If we only had some reminiscences by the younger Governor 
Winthrop, it is probable that our chapter would not lack 
a most entertaining conclusion. His authority dwindled 
very rapidly. In the latter part of March, his honored 
father addressed him as "Governour of Conecticott." 
Within a month, he changed the title to "Governor of the 
new Plantation upon Connecticutt," which was sufficiently 
indefinite. In June, however, when Thomas Hooker's 
company were well on the way, he had become simply 
"Governor of the Plantation upon the mouth of the Con- 
ecticot." These changing titles furnish a good illustration 
of what actually took place. Winthrop came to Connecticut 
to represent the patentees. He gave the settlers such stand- 
ing and defence as he could; but he quietly turned over to 
them the authority of government. We cannot doubt that 
in doing so, he was conforming to the known wishes of his 
superiors. He soon relinquished his post, returned to 
Boston, and, with grace and honor, withdrew from such 
perplexing responsibilities, concluding, no doubt, that the 
river plantations could look after their own interests. We 
have a strong conviction that he fully understood, from the 

1 "Report and Advice," in O'Callaghan's Hist, of New Nrthcrland, I: 421. 



SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT 29 

first, the purpose of the play that had thus been put upon 
the stage, and enjoyed the role that had been assigned to 
him, as the friend of the colonists. He served them well. 
After the curtain had fallen, they were glad to have him 
settle down at Pequot and participate in the blessings that 
the Warwick Patent, which has yet to be discovered, had 
been the means of bestowing upon the people of Connecticut. 



CHAPTER III 
THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 

The distinctive features of the settlement of Hartford were: 
the wisdom that characterized the removal of its founders, 
the dual establishment of the plantation, and its early 
organization of town government. In these respects, 
Hartford has a right to claim honor among her sister towns, 
though she must yield to Windsor and Wethersfield in prior- 
ity of settlement. 

It is clearly an error to speak of the company that Thomas 
Hooker personally conducted as making the beginning of 
the Suckiaug plantation. It was begun in 1635. The 
Newtown emigrants did not trust to the fortunes, which 
one party might expect to encounter in the wilderness. 
After two companies had gone forward to prepare the way, 
the main body followed. In the larger sense, they may 
all be included in Hooker's company. Each party was 
chosen to fill an honorable place in our history. 

Nor did the success of the removal depend upon any one 
man. Thomas Hooker seems to have been most concerned, 
personally, with the larger interests of the movement. When 
great principles were under discussion — such as their right 
to remove, and the organization of government — he looms 
up like an ancient prophet. He had inspired the emigration. 
As a minister he was its attracting force. Yet, in carrying 
out their plans, he trusted to others, who shared his con- 
fidence. Samuel Stone, on several occasions, was the man 
of practical affairs. Other settlers, such as Goodwin, 
Steele and Westwood, were well fitted for the service to 
which they were appointed. Many others, whose names 
are familiar, contributed to the success of their venture. 
Still a master-mind was in control of the movement, through 
the sway of personal influence. This was the great and 
merited honor due Thomas Hooker. 



THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 31 

In the spring of 1636, there was general anxiety among the 
main company to hasten their departure. Aside from the 
natural rivalry between emigrating towns, there were urgent 
reasons for haste in the season's labors. 1 The settlers had 
to clear away the forest, break up the virgin soil, gather 
fodder for the winter and prepare shelter for themselves 
and their cattle. Yet they experienced delays. In a letter 
of April 26th, Winthrop says: "Mr. Hooker and his com- 
pany intend to set forth three weeks hence." Their date 
then was May 17th. Some of them did not sell their homes 
before that month. Perhaps they were also delayed in 
securing transportation by water for their goods. Of that 
season, Lion Gardiner at Saybrook wrote: "Heare hath 
come many vessels with provision to goe vp to the planta- 
tions." We surmise, however, that they may have thought 
it wise to make their journey during the pleasant days of 
summer. There were gentle women among them, unac- 
customed to hardships in the forest, and mothers with their 
little children. None of our modern conveniences for 
camp life were known to them. They were to cook and eat 
their humble fare by the wayside; find shelter from dew 
and rain under overhanging boughs, and go to their rest 
in the ominous darkness, on the matted needles of ancient 
pines. Surely the shepherd that led forth that flock may 
have wisely sought the favor of nature's best season. 

The day of their departure was Tuesday, May 31, 1636, 
Winthrop places it under that date in his history. In a 
letter, also, of June 10th, he distinctly says: "Mr. Hooker 
went hence upon Tuesday the last day of May." 

How many were numbered in this company, and of whom 
did it consist? The only statement we have as to their 
number is that there were "about an hundred persons." 
This expression, if we accept its authority, is indefinite. 
It may mean some more than one hundred. In the writer's 
opinion, the company did considerably exceed that. Such 

1 The Dorchester people returned early to Windsor. "A great part" of their 
old church had "gone to Connecticut" by April 1st. Pynchon's company from 
Roxbury went early to Springfield. They planned to ship their goods on the 
Blessing "as soon as she can be laden" after April 14th. Their records at Agawam 
begin with May 14th. Winthrop's History, I: 218, 219, 465. 



32 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

a party could not have included, by a liberal estimate, 
more than thirty-five settlers, the remainder being wives, 
children and servants. This centenary number must have 
had the room that the Mayflower is said to have given to 
furniture, to accommodate all the ancestors for whom the 
honor has been claimed. The list of Newtown house- 
holders, February 8, 1635-6, must be the basis of a census. 
The location of settlers' house-lots at Hartford is also of 
value, for the majority who came in 1636, settled on the 
South-side. As a rule, arrivals after that year had lots in 
the suburbs. The following list of those who were members 
of the Newtown congregation, and are thought to have 
removed in Hooker's company, makes no pretense of being 
other than what a careful and unprejudiced study of the 
records seems to the author to warrant. It includes those 
who probably secured lots at Suckiaug in 1635, and returned 
to Newtown. The order follows the list of proprietors of 
Hartford, except as to Thomas Hooker himself. 

Mr. Thomas Hooker, Mr. Mathew Allyn, John Talcott, 
James Olmsted, William Wadsworth, William Lewis, Tim- 
othy Stanley, Edward Stebbins, John Pratt, William 
Ruscoe, James Ensign, John Hopkins, George Steele, 
Stephen Post, Thomas Judd, Thomas Lord, Sen., John 
Stone, Richard Lord, John Maynard, Jeremy Adams, 
Samuel Greenhill, Robert Day, Nathaniel Richards, Joseph 
Mygatt, Richard Butler, John Arnold, Thomas Bull, 
George Stocking, Seth Grant, Richard Olmsted, Joseph 
Easton, Clement Chaplin, Thomas Lord, Jr., John Olmsted 
and Samuel Whitehead. 

There were others, however, who came from Massachu- 
setts towns, or soon after their arrival from England, and 
doubtless became settlers of Hartford in 1636. Such were 
Thomas Welles — who is said to have come from Saybrook 
— John W r ebster and W T illiam W T hiting. The location of 
lots gives reason to believe that the following came that 
season — perhaps some of them with Hooker : Andrew 
Bacon, John Baysey, George Grave, William Hyde, Richard 
Lyman, John Marsh, John Moody, William Parker, John 
Skinner, Arthur Smith, Nathaniel Ward, John Wilcox and 
Gregory Wolterton. Thomas Stanton was in Connecticut 



THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 33 

in 1637, and perhaps secured his lot earlier, through his 
father-in-law, Thomas Lord. A number of young men, 
also, arrived late in 1636, or early in 1637, for they were 
soldiers in the Pequot War. William Gibbons, steward of 
George Wyllys, who followed in 1638, is said to have arrived 
in 1636, "with twenty men," to erect Wyllys's house and 
prepare his fields. Our inability to identify any of this 
company awakens the suspicion that some of them may 
have been among the soldiers of 1637, and later may have 
received land by the town's courtesy. Some of the most 
prominent members of Hooker's congregation were detained 
at Newtown. Benjamin Burr and Thomas Hosmer seem to 
have been there June 6, 1636, but probably followed that 
season. William Andrews, William Blumfield, John Clarke, 
John Haynes, Thomas Spencer and Andrew Warner removed 
early in 1637, and W 7 illiam Spencer in 1638. Edward Hop- 
kins had an early reservation of a house-lot, but arrived in 
1637. Surely the number that came to Hartford in 1636 
has been underestimated. In view of this conclusion, we 
can better appreciate the effect of declining emigration, 
and the protest of Thomas Hooker, in 1638, at the efforts 
of some at the Bay to discourage the movement. 

There are only two original authorities as to the details 
of Thomas Hooker's pilgrimage. These demand a critical 
examination. In the course of time, they have received 
such embellishments that the present popular impression of 
that journey is unworthy of credence. Winthrop's story 
is confined to the following paragraph: 

"Mr. Hooker, pastor of the church of Newtown, and 
most of his congregation, went to Connecticut. His wife 
was carried in a horse litter; and they drove one hundred 
and sixty cattle, and fed of their milk by the way." 1 

In one of Winthrop's letters, we have this additional 
information : 

"With that company, viz — by Tho. Bull and a man of 
mine own, I sent six cows, four steers and a bull." 2 

These cattle were to be sent on to his son at Saybrook, 
and were doubtless delivered there soon after the company 

1 Winthrop's History, I: 223. 

2 Ibid., I: 468. 



34 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

arrived. 1 The details of this narrative are valuable, and 
worthy of entire confidence. 

Our second authority is Cotton Mather, who wrote, in 
the Magnolia, as follows: "Reader, come with me now to 
behold some worthy, and learned, and genteel persons going 
to be buried alive on the banks of Connecticut, having been 
first slain by the ecclesiastical impositions and persecutions 
of Europe. . . . Accordingly, in the month of June, 1636, 
they removed an hundred miles to the westward, with the 
purpose to settle upon the delightful banks of the Connecti- 
cut River; and there were about an hundred persons in 
the first company that made this removal; who not being 
able to walk above ten miles a day took up near a fortnight 
in the journey, having no pillows to take their nightly rest 
upon, but such as their father Jacob found in the way to 
Padan-Aram." 2 

Cotton Mather was the original authority for the embel- 
lished narrative, which Governor Thomas Hutchinson re- 
corded in his history, published in 1764. From the latter 
historian, our popular misconceptions of Thomas Hooker's 
pilgrimage have been derived. 3 Hutchinson's version is as 
follows: 

"They did not take their departure until June the next 
year, and then about an hundred perfons in the firft com- 
pany, fome of them had lived in fplendour and delicacy in 
England, fet out on foot to travel an hundred and twenty 
or thirty miles with their wives and children, near a fort- 
nights journey, having no pillars but Jacob's, and no canopy 
but the heavens, a wildernefs to go thro' without the leaft 
cultivation, in moft places no path nor any marks to guide 
them, depending upon the compafs to fteer by, many 
hideous fwamps and very high mountains, befide five or 

1 Probably the men who delivered this herd were the "bretheren," referred to 
in Goodwin's letter of June 22nd to Winthrop. 

■ Mather's Magnolia, edn. 1855, I: 81, 342. 

3 Dr. Samuel Mather wrote a letter, in 1784, to his son Samuel, in which he said, 
of certain manuscripts, "I lent [them] to your careless Uncle, Mr. Hutchinson, 
and, as I suppose, they are irrecoverably lost and gone: I furnished him, as I 
suppose you know, with most of the Materials, of which his History was composed: 
And I am sorry that he made no better use of them: For he has misrepresented and 
misapplied Beveral Things, <>f which I had given him better Information" — Ma- 
ther's History of King Philip's War, 18G2, p. xxii. 



THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 35 

fix rivers, or different parts of the fame winding river (the 
Chickapi) not every where fordable, which they could not 
avoid." 1 

It will be evident to any one who compares these narra- 
tives, that Hutchinson added several details, which he doubt- 
less considered true, one of which was wholly false. That 
he said the company crossed the Chicopee river five or six 
times, was a natural error, as he evidently thought their 
route was as the "new way" ran, which was discovered in 
1648 and used in his own time. 2 But when he stated that 
there was "in most places no path, nor any marks to guide 
them," and that they journeyed "depending upon the 
compass to steer by," he wrote as one entirely ignorant of 
the early customs of travel in New England. The school- 
boy who knows the primeval forest, will hardly believe that 
this company of intelligent men, skilled in woodcraft, en- 
cumbered by burdens of goods and provisions, driving one 
hundred and sixty cattle, with sheep and swine and fowls, 
having in charge an invalid's litter and mothers with tod- 
dling children, took their journey through a pathless forest, 

1 Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, 1 : 45. 

2 This "new way" went through Watertown and Waltham, diverged from the 
"old way" in Weston, led west through Wayland, across Sudbury marsh and river, 
through Sudbury, Marlborough, Worcester, Brookfield and Brimfield to the Qua- 
baug or Chicopee river, which it crossed "four or five times," passing through 
Palmer on the north side of the river, across it again to the south side, and on to 
Springfield. Nashaway planters petitioned for a way across Sudbury river in 1645 
(Mass. Arch. CXXI: 5). In 1648, Winthrop wrote: " This year a new way was 
found out to Connecticut, by Nashoway, which avoided much of the hilly way" 
(Winthrop's History, II: 396). John Eliot probably discovered it, and in 1649 
followed it to Quabaug (3 Ser. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., IV: 123, 125). John Pres- 
cott, of Lancaster, worked on the eastern section two seasons (Mass. Arch., CXXI: 
31). Farms were laid out along it in 1662 (Mass. Arch., XXXIII: 22; XLV: 
107; Proprietary Rec. of Worcester, pp. 21, 23). The General Court ordered high- 
ways in the eastern section in 1653 (Mass. Col. Rec, III: 303). In 1673 the County 
Court, on Marlborough's petition, ordered a highway laid out westward to Qua- 
baug, which was done in 1674 (Middlesex County Court Records, 1671-1680, pp. 
77, 101; Mass. Arch., CXXI: 92) In 1700 it was "the stated Rhode to Conet- 
ticot, especially Betwixt Wooster & Brookfield," but hazardous (Mass. Arch., 
CXXI: 101). On March 7, l?31-2 the Hampshire County Court ordered it laid 
out as a highway from Springfield to Brookfield, and the layout was reported May 
16, 1732 (Hampshire County Court Records, II: 143, 149, 165). It was the main 
road to Boston from Springfield until recent times. Gov. Hutchinson's uncle, 
Edward, owned a tract of land on the Quabaug river, and he probably knew the 
road (Mass. Acts and Resolves, XI: 423, 727; XXII: 252). 



36 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

"depending upon the compass to steer by," especially as 
they did not then know the course to Hartford. It would 
have been a foolhardy undertaking, quite impossible of 
accomplishment. Only imagine Thomas Bull, with "six 
cows, four steers and a bull," endeavoring to find a course 
for his charge, west southwest, up hill and down dale, around 
fallen trees and through tangled undergrowth, halted 
abruptly by a fordless river and running head on into an 
impenetrable swamp! Does any one suppose that Goody 
Grundy could have steered her pigs, by a compass, to 
Hartford in a fortnight? That instrument was sometimes 
used to show the right path where they diverged, or the 
traveller was lost, but rarely, except by surveyors, to navi- 
gate the New England forests. The herd followed one 
another, as they would soon learn to do, in a beaten path. 
It had been trodden that season by several other com- 
panies with cattle. Along such a way it would have been 
comparatively easy for a horse litter to travel, nor would a 
litter have been altogether uncomfortable. 1 There were 
landmarks, too, some of them known to this day. Indian 
villages were located here and there, providing food and 
shelter in need, as many an early pilgrim to Connecticut 
had reason to know\ In Hooker's company, there were 
doubtless a half dozen or more men, who had made the 
journey several times. There were friendly Indians to 
guide the party, if necessary. Hutchinson was justified, 
however, in the purpose that led him astray — the lauda- 
tion of the heroic features of this pilgrimage. It was an 
arduous journey. Their path led them over "high moun- 
tains" and through "hideous swamps." It was long and 
rough, the travelling of which, even now, augments our 
respect for the physical endurance of those pilgrims, who 
followed it so long ago. 

In order to appreciate the experiences of Thomas Hooker's 
company we must imagine ourselves to be living in the 
conditions of his time. There were then few country roads 

1 A horse litter was framed of "two long ash poles, with slats fastened across the 
middle, the forward ends attached to the horse's saddle-girths, and the hind ends 
dragging on the ground or fastened to the girths of another horse." Daniels's 
Hist, of Oxford, p. 81. 



THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 37 

in the Bay Colony, and those connected settled commu- 
nities. The only overland ways to distant regions were by 
Indian paths. Most of these had long been used by the 
natives. In some places, they were worn deep in the earth. 
Such paths offered the white man great advantages. They 
were not only a sure guide to his destination, but they also 
followed the higher land, keeping clear of swamps, where 
it was possible, and leading to ford ways across the rivers. 
Along these paths, the Indians brought news of distant 
localities, desirable for settlement. At first, a few daring 
adventurers followed them into the wilderness to explore. 
Then, white families, singly or in small parties, pushed out 
toward the frontier, and built in some favorable place their 
log cabins. As their settlement grew, the path was widened. 
It soon became a road, along which civilization went and 
came. The story of its development is told by the very 
names applied to it. First, it was a mere "trail"; then, an 
Indian "path"; by and by, the "country road" of the 
pioneers, and, at last, the "highway" of a settled township. 
It was the custom to locate early grants of land along these 
Indian paths, the tract being bounded, frequently, by the 
path on one side. To this fact, we owe most of our knowl- 
edge of their course. Some of them have been accurately 
determined, and the ancient path or road, which would 
otherwise have escaped observation, has been discovered. 

The Indian path to the Connecticut River, in 1636, was 
familiar to the English. There cannot be any doubt that 
along it Thomas Hooker's company made their journey. 
Wahginnacut, "a sagamore upon the River Quonehtacut," 
sachem at East Windsor, probably followed it when he 
visited Boston, in 1631. He informed Governor Winthrop 
that it was "not above five days' journey by land" to his 
country. 1 Along this path, John Oldham went and came 
several times. In 1633, he and "three with him went over- 
land to Connecticut to trade." 2 "He lodged at Indian 
towns all the way." His route is identified, in part, by that 
fact, and the statement that he brought back some speci- 

1 Winthrop's History, I: 62; De Forest's History of the Indians of Connecticut, 
p. 73. 

2 Winthrop's History, I: 132. 



38 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

mens of black lead, "whereof, the Indians told him, there 
was a whole rock." This could have been none other than 
Leadmine Hill, in Sturbridge. The General Court, in 1644, 
made a grant to John Winthrop, Jr. of "y e hill at Tantousq, 
about 60 miles west ward, in which the black lead is." * 
On his journey the following year, when he intended to go to 
Mohegan "by the way of Tantiusques, to the black lead 
mine," he missed his way, and found that he was "going 
in a direct course towards Agawam." 2 His descendants 
doubtless regretted the grant, as they buried a deal of 
money there, mining black lead. 

In 1642, Nathaniel Woodward and Solomon Saffery, 
surveyors, in their work of establishing the southern bound- 
ary of the Massachusetts patent, made a map on which their 
route to Connecticut is indicated by a line. This shows 
their general course, and at several points, they recorded 
data as to their location. These coincide with the conclu- 
sions of antiquaries, sufficiently to prove that these sur- 
veyors travelled along this familiar path, and that it passed 
certain identified landmarks. 3 The course of these surveyors 
led them to the earliest crossing of the Connecticut River, 
at Bissell's old ferry, in Windsor. 

This ancient Indian path received, in early times, two 
names. One was given to it by the English, on Connecti- 
cut River. It was the "Bay Path." The inhabitants of 
Springfield, in 1646, voted to give liberty "to gather candle- 
wood in ye playne in ye Bay path." In 1647, they ordered 
"a Horse way over the meddow to ye Bay path." The 
other name was the more natural designation of the English 
about Boston. It was the "Connecticut Path." After 
the "new way" was discovered, the former was sometimes 
distinguished as the "Old Bay Path," or "Old Connecticut 
Path." In 1674, Major Daniel Gookin described Hassa- 
nemesit [Grafton] as lying "about two miles to the east- 

1 Mass. Col. Rec., II: 82; Proc. Am. Antiq. Soc., New Ser., XIV: 471 ff. 

2 2 Scr. Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc, VIII: 7-12; The Hartford Courant, Dec. 22, 1892. 

3 "Woodward's and Saffery's Map of 1042" — Mass. Archives. Published in 
Ammidown's Hist. Coll., I: 294; and Bowen's Boundary Disputes of Conn., p. 19. 
See "Interpretation of Woodward's and Saffery's Map," by Levi B. Chase, of 
Sturbridge, in N. E. Hist, and Gen. Reg., April, 1901; and Quinabaug Hist. Soc. 
Leaflets, Vol. I., No. 7. 



THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 39 

ward of Nipmuck [Blackstone] river and near unto the old 
road way to Connecticut." Confusion has arisen from the 
indiscriminate application of these names to all of the three 
main routes, of later years, between Boston and Connecticut 
towns. 1 In 1636, the path that Thomas Hooker's company 
followed was the only one used by the English, and so 
continued for a dozen years. It was the "ordinary way" 
that Ludlow and Pynchon took to Boston in 1637, when 
Hooker and Stone went by the way of Providence, along 
the "Pequot Path" from the Connecticut River. There 
was no better authority on this subject in early times, 
than Rev. John Eliot, the "Apostle to the Indians." In 
1650, he wrote of Springfield as follows: "And this towne 
ouerland from the Bay layeth: 80: or: 90: myles South- 
west, and is the roade way to all the townes upon this river, 
and [that] lye more Southward." 2 It is with this "Old 
Bay Path" that the journeys of the founders of Hartford 
must be associated, and when we consider that a dozen or 
more parties had already travelled it, we realize the ab- 
surdity of supposing that Thomas Hooker's company would 
attempt to follow an untrodden course through the forest. 

1 The third route, via Woodstock, inherited the name "Connecticut Path." 
It was not an early through route, but was developed for such travel, partly out of 
sections of older paths, and became the main road from Hartford to Boston. Men- 
don was laid out on both sides of the Nipmuck path. Such a direct route was 
possibly in mind, in 1644, when the Commissioners of the United Colonies ap- 
pointed Edward Hopkins "to fynd & lay out the best way to the Bay," but the 
"new way," via Brookfield, being soon afterwards discovered, the purpose was not 
accomplished. {Ply. Col. Rec, IX: 25; X: 108; Mass. Arch., CXXI: 31). 
Ephraim Curtis, in 1675, conducted Uncas on his way to Mohegan through Natick, 
Marlborough, Hassanemesit [Grafton], Manshage [Oxford], Mayenecket [Dudley] 
and across the Quinabaug river to Senexit Meadow in Woodstock (Mass. Arch., 
LXVII: 214). The settlement of Wabbaquasset, designed in 1682, made a road 
thither necessary, and apparently suggested "a better & nearer way" to Connec- 
ticut, which the General Court, March 30, 1683, empowered Major Pynchon to 
"lay out and mark" (Mass. Col. Rec, V: 394; Mass. Arch. CXXI: 61). On its 
part, Connecticut took similar action for a road to the uplands, and in 1705, there 
was such a road from Woodstock to Hartford in general use, as shown by Chand- 
ler's map (Mohegan Case, p. 49). It passed through Ashford and entered the 
Connecticut valley through Bolton Notch.. Judge Samuel Sewall came that way 
to Hartford, in 1718 (5 Ser. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., VII: 195). In 1724, the Con- 
necticut General Assembly ordered a highway "laid out and markt" on the most 
convenient ground and straightest course from Hartford towards Boston" (Conn. 
Col. Rec. VI: 506). This was thereafter and until recent times the "Old Connecti- 
cut Road." 

2 2 Ser. Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc, II: 49; Green's Hist, of Springfield, p. 4. 



40 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

We purpose now to attend Hooker's company on their 
pilgrimage from their Newtown home to Hartford. At 
last, their appointed day of departure arrived. All were 
ready. We may think of them as gathered at the sunrise 
hour on the north bank of the Charles River, where their 
pathway began. Perhaps the conch shell blew a signal, or 
some hardy guide fired his trusty rifle into the air: but, if 
we may judge them by their tearful farewells to old Eng- 
land, or their practice only a year later, when their pastor 
gave them his blessing, as their bravest warriors pushed 
their shallops out into the current of the Connecticut, the 
excitement of departure was hushed, and they stood with 
bowed heads, as their reverend leader commended them to 
the direction of Jehovah, who had guided a trusting Israel 
through the wilderness. 

It was a long and straggling procession that took the 
road westward, through Watertown. Some stalwart pioneer 
on horseback led the way, and guides with him made up 
the vanguard. Perhaps the cattle and flocks came next, 
driven by herders, Thomas Bull very likely in command. 
Then, in families or groups, as they chose, they followed 
one another — chivalrous husbands helping their mates, 
children in laughing parties, the lady's horse litter attended 
by her maids, their pastor with staff and pack, the elders in 
his company, and, in the rear, the lingering young men, 
who plucked many a flower by the wayside, to gladden 
loving eyes. We can see them now, and hear the music of 
the cow-bells and cheer of their voices, as they move along 
arrayed in their homespun of simple Puritan fashion — as 
noble a company as were ever guided by the star of empire. 

Of their Watertown neighbors, some had gone before. 
There would be messages committed to the pilgrims, to 
carry to friends at W f ethersfield. The road for some miles 
was "the way into the country" that many of them knew. 
Here and there farms had been already granted. By and 
by, the log cabins were few, as they passed out of inhabited 
bounds into the wilderness. If the company journeyed 
about ten miles a day, as Mather suggests, it was somewhere 
near the western border of Waltham that the guides halted 
beside some spring or brook, and began to prepare their 



THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 41 

camp. The cattle were gathered in some natural enclosure, 
and the herders began their milking. Then the parties 
arrived, one by one, weary, footsore and hungry, and made 
ready the sylvan chamber of their choice. Out of the 
kettle that hung over the blazing camp-fire, they received 
into great porringers of milk their "corn meal mush," which 
must have been their staple fare; and all were satisfied. 
Then, as the shadows of the forest enshrouded them, their 
pastor lifted his voice in grateful prayer, the watch was 
set, their laughter subsided into whispers — it was night 
and the pilgrims slept. Thus the days and nights followed 
one another with their favors. 

The Connecticut Path, avoiding the lowlands along 
Sudbury River, led through Weston, Wayland and Framing- 
ham, passing north of Cochituate Pond. Then it turned 
southward through the present borders of South Framing- 
ham, Ashland, Hopkinton and Westborough to Grafton. 1 
Here was Hassanemesit, an Indian village of Eliot fame. 
In early times, it was a favorite lodging-place. Governor 
John Winthrop, Jr., spent the night there in 1645. Two or 
three miles further the path crossed "Nipnet" or Blackstone 
River, one of the points that Woodward and Saffery marked 
on their map. Following on through the present town of 
Millbury, north of Singletary Pond, it entered the bounds 
of Oxford, turning to the westward at the Center, and going 
through Charlton, where its ancient name was the "Quabaug 
Path." 2 

1 Hudson's Hist, of Sudbury, pp. 5-7; Temple's Hist, of Framingham, pp. 80-82, 
87, 89; Daniels's Hist, of Oxford, p. 9; Benedict's Hist, of Sutton, pp. 18, 21, 22. 
Another way led through Newton, diverging from the Dedham road, crossing the 
Charles River at the Upper Falls and passing through Needham and Natick to 
Grafton, where it joined the Connecticut Path. The surveyors of 1642 seem to 
have gone that way. It was nearer for the Dorchester emigrants. It was "the 
molt convenient paffage toward Conecticute," says a Dedham petition, "for all 
y e Plantations beyond Neponfit." It was thought about 1652 that "it will prove 
the beft way from Boston to Nafhaway & other plantations to be erected in those 
parts as alfo for the Southerne plantations Northward" (Mass. Arch., CXXI: 
26, 226, 231). The later use of this path was increased by Eliot's Indian village 
at Natick. 

2 Along this section for some miles, stone markers have been set by the Quina- 
baug Historical Society, where Mr. Levi B. Chase of Sturbridge has discovered the 
path by the means of land records. These markers are inscribed "Bay Path 1633." 
On certain hillsides and at fordways, the old road is distinctly visible. See Chase's 



42 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Along this path Thomas Hooker's company journeyed, 
day after day, until the Sabbath offered them a much 
needed rest. No place on their route seems more likely, 
in a computation of their progress, or more pleasing to the 
imagination, as their forest sanctuary, than the western 
slope of Fisk Hill in Sturbridge. Hither their path cer- 
tainly led, and here tradition locates an ancient camping 
place. It may be fitly named "the shadow of a great rock 
in a weary land," for two fragments of an immense boulder, 
five feet high, were probably in early times the side walls of 
the traveller's hut. On a rise of ground, there once stood 
a wide-spreading tree. Not far away, is a never-failing 
spring. An Indian path diverging here to the southward, 
led through Woodstock to Mohegan. In the near view to 
the southwest, is Leadmine Hill, for this is Tantiusque, the 
ancient Indian gateway to the west. Here, also, in 1715, 
Governor Gurdon Saltonstall located the corner of his 
grant of two thousand acres, running his lines to take in 
all the best land of this beautiful valley. Far away on the 
horizon, is Steerage Rock, which the pilgrim company must 
pass as they descend to the Quabaug River, which leads 
them on to Springfield. To the northward, is the "Hilly 
Country," which this path has turned southward to avoid. 
It was so named on the surveyors' map in 1642. On that 
Sabbath in 1636, the view on all sides was draped in many 
tints of summer green, and, underneath the cathedral arches 
of the forest, perhaps with friendly Indian attendants from 
nearby villages, this Puritan company worshipped, with 
prayer and praise, their Jehovah who had led them hitherto. 

The path leads on down the slope westward, over the 
brook, along the foot of Cemetery Hill, across "Old Tan- 
tiusque Fordway" and up the valley through Fiskdale. 
It passes the southeast corner of John Eliot's grant of four 
thousand acres, called "Potepog." Here he proposed to 
establish another Natick of "Praying Indians." Their 
prayers were interrupted by King Philip's War, but that 
did not invalidate the apostle's title to the land. Along 
this section of the way, there were once many Indian vil- 

" Early Indian Trails through Tantiusque," etc., in Quinabaug Historical Society 
Leaflets, Vol. I, No. (i and No. 7. 



-\^V«vy, 




,. t»'j*jfc~ . ' 



'^m r ^% 



An Early Camping Place on the Bay Path 
Fisk Hill, Sturbridge, Mass. 




The Country Road at Namerick Brook 
Used before 1664 



THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 43 

lages. The path passed north of Little Alum Pond, where 
the records fix it, on to "Little Rest," and north of Sherman 
Pond. Here was that famous Indian stronghold, known as 
"Quabaug Old Fort." As the path passes north of Steerage 
Rock and descends the slope, the Quabaug or Chicopee 
River is seen, winding its way through the valley westward. 
Here the "old road" has been traced by land grants, and 
the site of Richard Fellows's tavern, established in 1657 as 
"a house for travellers," has been marked. We can imagine 
the Newtown pilgrims, inured to travel and hardship, 
hastening onward with reviving spirits, as they drew near 
to Agawam. They scented with delight the aroma of the 
trees, as they passed over the "Pine Plains" which the sur- 
veyors of 1642 noted, and ere long they reached the sum- 
mit of the hill where the path broke from the forest's 
shade into the plantation's clearing. Thus the glories of 
the Connecticut valley, of which they had so often dreamed, 
burst upon their view, and they were among their friends of 
Roxbury. 

The portion of Hooker's route, that is of greatest interest 
to his company's descendants, is that from Springfield to 
Hartford. Here there can be no doubt as to the location of 
the Bay Path. It passed through the usual stages of 
development, from an Indian trail to the "country road," 
and finally to a highway. 1 At the upper end of Long- 
meadow where the shoulder of the hill is only a short distance 
from the river, was "Longmeadow Gate." Through this 
the path led southward. It was sometimes called "Long- 
meadow Path." In 1682, the road to Freshwater River 
was laid out on the upland and the old road through the 
meadow was abandoned. The railroad now runs about 
where the old path or road was, north of Longmeadow sta- 
tion. South of this the railroad diverges to the west, and 
traces of the old road can be seen on the east. In 1664, 
the County Court appointed a committee to consider the 
lay-out of this old road as a highway. The record of their 
action specifies the route as follows: 

"From y e lower end of Springfield to long Meddow gate, 
running where it now doth, in breadth ffour rods, & from 

1 The Bay Path, by Dr. J. G. Holland, pp. 401, 406, 407. 



44 THE COLOMAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

y* long Meddow gate to the bridge y e lower end of by the 
Rivers bank shal be in breadth two rods, & from y e lower 
end of the Said Meddow into fresh water River, soe called, 
as the way now runs, ffourr rodds, & from thence to Nam- 
erick, where John Bissell had a barn standing, as now y* 
way runs twenty rods, & from thence to Namerick brook 
where will best suite for a bridge, two rodds, & from thence 
to y e dividing lyne betweene the Collonyes, where y* horse 
way now lyes, two rodds." 1 

The latter part of this lay-out refers to the road within 
the present bounds of Connecticut. At Namerick Brook, 
the records and topography afford the best opportunity to 
locate the way, into which the Bay Path was soon developed 
by the early use of settlers' carts. It is most convenient to 
trace it northward from Windsor, for so the records run, 
and in that town the path was made a highway within six 
years of the time Thomas Hooker travelled it. An extant 
leaf of Windsor's original town votes has the following 
record, dated February 21, 1641[-2]: 

"Its ordered that the way betwixt Henry Styles & James 
Eggleftons there homelotts downe to the greate riuer, 
fhall be allowfed] for a publicke highway for horfe & droue[?J 
to Agawam & the Bay, and from thence [southward] to the 
bridge & foe by the head of Plimouth meade downe to 
Harteford." 2 

This road turned eastward from the present highway, 
about sixty rods north of the Ellsworth homestead. It was 
evidently laid out where the original path had been, leading 
down to John Bissell's "old ferry." On Woodward's and 
Saffery's map is the note: "Crossing Conecticott river at 
Windsor fery place, the house of John Bissell being on the 
west side and the Widow Gibbs hir house on the east side 
of the river." In 1662, Mathew Grant, after an examina- 
tion of the town records, gave a rather minute description 
of this "country road" in the book of Town Ways of Wind- 
sor. The ferry landed on the east side between the land 
of Abraham Randall and Catharine Gibbs. The further 

1 Burt's History of Springfield, I: 141. 

- Windsor Town Votes, Ms. in collections of the Connecticut Historical Society. 
The same lay-out is found in Windsor's old hook of Town Ways, pp. 14, 20. 



THE PILGRIMAGE OF THOMAS HOOKER 45 

course of the road northward, nearly half a mile, to Namerick 
Brook is then given as follows: 

"And then goeth up by the River to the uper side of 
that which was Elias Parkmans Land, and there turns a 
way from the River, turning toward the upland and runs 
up as has been marked and set out to where the way was 
ordered to go down the bank and pafs over the brook, and 
so to pass a way through the uplands and over other brooks, 
and on till it is paft the bounds of Windfor, and this was 
to be maintained for a Country way." * 

Having this description of the old road, one can hardly 
miss it where it goes down the bank to cross the south fork 
of Namerick Brook. Here it has been preserved from the 
ravages of time. The road followed the river northward 
for some distance. Then it turned "toward the upland," 
in plain view, and traversed an elevated field, Here the 
owner once ploughed up evidences of an old building. We 
follow the course to the brow of the wooded ravine. There 
it goes "down the bank," from west to east, as no way 
from the meadow would have been made. It is evidently 
an old cart road. It passes a copious spring, flowing from 
a shaded nook in the hillside. We may fitly call it the 
"Pilgrims' Spring," after those who doubtless drank of its 
waters. Here would have been an ideal camping place. 
The road crosses the brook at a convenient place for a 
bridge. Then it climbs again to the upland, which it 
traverses, and goes down the slope to cross the north fork 
of the brook. Turning northward, then it passes, on a 
knoll, the site of John Osborn's early home. Thence it led 
along the upland hillside toward the northern bound of 
Windsor, cropping out here and there, two rods wide as in 
the record, and plainly visible where it goes through a wood- 
land tract adjoining the river. This is without question 
the ancient country road that was used in 1662, and the 
records indicate that it was laid out where the older path 
had been to Agawam and the Bay. The crossing of Nam- 

1 Richard Oldage was the original owner of the lot next north of Parkman's. 
It passed to his son-in-law, John Osborn, who acquired more land along and north 
of Namerick Brook. From his grandson, Isaac Osborn, in 1727, John Prior bought 
the land now owned by Mr. F. A. Hamilton and known as "Namerick Farm," 
Station 83. 



46 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

erick Brook could not be avoided. There it was necessary 
to turn eastward to escape the low land at the brook's 
mouth, often flooded now as then. The topography in 
connection with the description, therefore, does not admit 
of any wide range of possibility as to the location of the Bay 
Path which the pilgrims trod, where it goes "down the 
bank" to cross Namerick Brook. 

At Windsor, Thomas Hooker's company were among 
friends. Crossing the river at the ferry as they could, they 
straggled along the way southward, then a mere path with 
scarcely a wheel track. The adventures of the wilderness 
had altered their appearance into that of hardy pioneers, 
and, after the delay of greetings, or perhaps a woodsman's 
feast and a bivouac within a new palisado, they pursued 
their journey, across the rivulet, along "the head of Pli- 
mouth meadow," past the trading house, which Captain 
Holmes had brought thither in his bark, under the threaten- 
ing guns of the Dutchmen, onward into the North Meadow 
of Suckiaug, and through it, to find themselves at last, 
though pilgrims from Newtown, at home in another New- 
town, on the banks of the Great River. 



CHAPTER IV 
ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 

The early organization of the three towns, Hartford, Wind- 
sor and Wethersfield, is a matter of importance, both in 
their own annals and in the study of constitutional govern- 
ment. It is well-known that much has been claimed for 
the Connecticut town as the unit of the state's political 
system. That its colonial government, as originally estab- 
lished under a constitution, was the creation of three towns, 
already organized as "little republics," has been a tradi- 
tion, which historians have blindly followed and in which 
they have educated the towns themselves. The author, 
who is interested solely in discovering the truth in the town 
and colonial records, has been forced to adopt an entirely 
different opinion. The subject is obviously one to be studied 
— on the one hand, in the records of the towns, and, on the 
other, in those of the Colony. There will be perfect accord 
between the facts disclosed in each. Leaving the study of 
the latter to another chapter, our present inquiries take us 
back to an examination of the manner in which these early 
communities were established, organized and governed. 
The conclusions reached would better be here stated for the 
reader. They are: that these pioneer Connecticut settle- 
ments were at first established as plantations; that they 
were governed by the votes of those who had propriety rights 
in them, called "inhabitants"; that we have a particular 
acquaintance with one of them, through the extant records 
of Agawam; that, in Hartford, there were North-side and 
South-side plantations; that the early orders of the former 
were transcribed, in 1639, into the book of town votes; 
that, in December 1637, their inhabitants chose townsmen 
to further unity in their own affairs; that Hartford thus 
anticipated the others in town organization; that such 
action did not give it participation, as a town, in the adop- 



48 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

tion of the Constitution; that the three original plantations 
were authorized by the General Court, October 10, 1639, to 
form their town governments, which authority conferred 
upon them legal standing as such in the Colony; and that 
there is no evidence in the records of Windsor or Wethers- 
field that either of them were any other than plantations, 
until such legal organization was effected. 

At the outset, let us give due weight to the fact that the 
conditions under which these plantations were established 
were not such as to hasten town organization. They had 
removed, as elsewhere shown, under an agreement that 
effectually disposed of the question of government for one 
year. They were left thereafter to mature their own 
designs at their leisure. Their principal need for some 
time was an equitable method of making divisions of land. 
That was the right of the legal inhabitants in each planta- 
tion, afterwards formed into bodies of proprietors. It did 
not demand town organization. If we take account of the 
conditions and labors of pioneer life, with the extraordinary 
strain of the Pequot W 7 ar, it seems quite likely that all their 
attention was engaged in a struggle for existence. 

These settlements were in the beginning, it is claimed, 
only plantations. They were called "The River Planta- 
tions." The word "town" was occasionally applied to 
them, as in the Commission for a provisional government; 
but it referred to them as inhabited geographical areas. 
Such a designation did not necessarily imply the existence 
of b town government. In common usage, the term "planta- 
tion" was applied to an original settlement in a new coun- 
try, where certain individuals, called "inhabitants," had 
secured land rights. There was an important distinction 
between such a settlement and an organized town, es- 
pecially in the matter of government. Its affairs were 
ordered in a meeting of these legal inhabitants. They met, 
elected a moderator, passed votes, and appointed com- 
mittees to carry them out. When a plantation arrived at 
such a stage of organization that its inhabitants elected 
certain of their number to conduct its affairs, and secured 
legal standing in the colonial government, it became a town. 
This was afterwards the method of procedure in Connecticut 



ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 49 

settlements. In the records, both of the towns and the 
Colony, the term "plantation" is generally used before the 
date of perfected organization. Although it was sometimes 
used thereafter, through habit of speech, it came gradually 
to be displaced by the word "town." In the Constitution, 
the latter term had a proleptic use, as towns were to be 
the factors in their colonial government. If, therefore, the 
land records show grants of land by the plantation, and 
later similar grants by the town, the explanation lies upon 
the face of the record — the settlement had passed from 
one estate into the other. The General Court so far recog- 
nized this distinction in 1640, as to suggest the manner in 
which plantations might be made through the admission 
of inhabitants, and to provide that when a plantation had 
come to "be at chardge to mayntayne Officers w th in theselues 
then other considerations may be had by the Courte." l 
Thus some of their later settlements passed from the estate 
of a plantation into that of a town. 

The inhabitants of these plantations were termed such 
in a legal sense. This word then had in all the New Eng- 
land colonies the meaning given to it in English law. An 
inhabitant was not merely a resident, but a householder, 
actual or prospective, who had secured a right in the settle- 
ment's affairs, either by participation in an original founders' 
agreement, or by the votes of other inhabitants. To such 
persons in Newtown, Dorchester and Watertown, the 
Massachusetts General Court had given permission to re- 
move. 2 As emigrants, they were so named in the Com- 
mission for a provisional government. 3 Throughout the 
period of their plantation estate, these inhabitants were the 
constituent units of their political life. No one should in- 
fer, however, that this right of an inhabitant was something 
that they jealously reserved to themselves. On the con- 
trary, they were anxious for its extension, provided the 
new-comers were men of the proper sort. The inhabitant 
was the germ of colonization, and all the plantations were 
desirous of building up their communities. They restricted 
it only so far as their common welfare demanded. There 

1 Conn. Col. Rec., I: 59. 

2 Mass. Col. Rec, I: 119, 146, 148. J Ibid., I: 170. 



50 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

were legal inhabitants, who did not remove to Connecticut, 
and others, who soon removed thence, elsewhere. Against 
the retention of this right beyond a reasonable time, the 
plantations protected themselves by limiting the period 
for removal or building upon the lots reserved for non- 
residents. The inhabitants were, therefore, those in whom 
the people found the expression of their opinions and pur- 
poses. There was no term current in early colonial times 
that had a more democratic meaning. Proprietorship was 
exclusive in property rights, and freemanship in the exercise 
of the franchise. The standing of an inhabitant was the 
attainable privilege of every sober-minded and industrious 
emigrant from over seas, who entered the river plantations. 
In the author's opinion, it was partly the attachment of 
these inhabitants to their simple democratic estate that 
hindered the earlier development of the colonial govern- 
ment. 

We have in print fairly complete records of such a planta- 
tion — those of Agawam or Springfield. It is singular that 
this fact has been so generally overlooked by students of 
Connecticut government. During the first two years of 
colonial history, Agawam was one of the river plantations. 
It was then supposed to be within the limits of Connecticut. 
The other three plantations and the General Court recog- 
nized it as an equal factor in their government. In the 
Court that is supposed to have been largely engaged in 
discussing the Fundamental Orders, Agawam was repre- 
sented by committees, chosen at a meeting of its plantation 
inhabitants. The presumption certainly is that the other 
plantations had ordered their affairs in the same manner. 
If it shall appear, moreover, that what is known of early 
practices in Hartford, and its associated plantations, was 
in accord with the same in Springfield, we may fairly con- 
clude that we have, in the latter, an illustration of the 
proceedings in the three towns whose earliest records are 
lost. 

The plantation records of Springfield begin with May 
14, 1636, a month before the arrival of Hooker's company. 1 
It was then that William Pynchon's company first met. 

1 Burt's Hist, of Springfield, I: 153 ff. 



ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 51 

Apparently, their initial act was to make a plantation 
agreement. It was expressed in thirteen articles, to which 
two others were added on May 16th. The agreement was 
then signed by the eight men, who were "al[l] of the first 
adventurers & subscribers for the plantation." These 
articles specify the particulars upon which they then agreed, 
such as procuring a minister, giving to every inhabitant a 
house-lot and a parcel of pasture and meadow, assessing 
rates on the lands according to each man's proportion, 
and rewarding with special grants those who had hitherto 
prosecuted the plantation. A committee was appointed, 
May 16th, to grant house-lots as ordered. Their unit of 
authority for years thereafter was the inhabitant. The 
franchise clause of their votes is expressed in varied language, 
such as: "It is ordered w th y e consent of y e Plantation," 
"by y e consent of the inhabitants," "by y e Plantation at a 
general meeting," "by y e Joynt consent of y e Inhabitants 
of y e Plantation," "with the generall consent and vote of 
the Inhabitants" etc. These expressions meant the same 
thing — that the inhabitants constituted the body politic 
of their plantation estate. This body, by vote, granted 
and distributed lands, passed orders, laid out highways, 
made rates and fixed wages like a company of property 
owners. When they bought land from the Indians, they 
paid for it by a rate assessed upon their land. They had 
no statedly elected officers. Their authority for the ap- 
pointment of a constable was apparently derived from the 
Massachusetts General Court. After they withdrew from 
participation in Connecticut's government, they seem to 
have been left entirely to the resources of their plantation 
meetings, until June 2, 1641. Then, William Pynchon was 
commissioned magistrate by the Massachusetts General 
Court, with "full power & authority to governe the inhab- 
itants at Springfield." With the assistance of this Court, 
they continued until September 26, 1644. Then, "by 
general vote of y e Towne," they laid aside their simple 
democratic methods and elected, for one year, five men of 
their number, who were given "power to order in all pru- 
dential affairs of the Towne." These men were first called 
"the five men." That was precisely the action taken by 



52 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

the adjoining Connecticut plantation several years earlier, 
only Windsor chose "seven men." As the inhabitants 
were sometimes termed "townsmen," those elected in 
Springfield soon came to be called the "Five Townsmen," 
and later simply "townsmen," "select townsmen," or 
"selectmen." x It is fully proved by the records, therefore, 
that one of the original river plantations, constituted of 
inhabitants, governed themselves according to the simplest 
principles of democracy, until the way was open for their 
organization as a town. 

We have seen that the emigrants from Newtown removed 
to Hartford in several companies. The pioneers of 1635 
settled north of the Little River, the land south of it not 
being then open to them. This became the North-side 
Plantation. The majority of the settlers who came in 
1636, settled south of the river and became the South-side 
Plantation. Our land records prove that each plantation 
distributed its lands to its own inhabitants. When returns 
of these were made to the Secretary of the Colony, as ordered 
by the General Court, it was in two lists. One was of 
North-side inhabitants, and the other of those on "the 
South fide of the riverrett." 2 Each settler, with a few 
exceptions, received his proportions on the side of his resi- 
dence. These plantations held separate meetings. They 
kept independent records. The town votes mention the 
North-side book and, by implication, one was also kept 
by the other. They were, in fact, two settlements, each 
conducted like Springfield. 

To one who is not familiar with the topographical condi- 
tions, this dual estate may seem to have been unnecessary, 
or to suggest a disagreement among the settlers. It was not 
so. There is not the slightest indication of any jealousy or 
dissension in early years between these two companies of 
inhabitants. It was a plan into which they came quite 
naturally, and for which there were good reasons. The 
uncertainty as to their issue with the Dutch may have 
influenced them. If they failed to make good their title 
to the South-side lands, they would still have those of the 
North-side. Probably, also, they contemplated from the 

1 Ibid., I: 8, 23, 175, 187, etc. 2 Original Distribution, pp. xiv-xvi. 



ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 53 

first a final union in town government. Their principal 
reason, doubtless, was the convenience of a near location of 
their lands. This was favoured by the topographical con- 
ditions. The Little River, as a dividing line, offered the 
same water privileges to both. Along the Great River, 
northward and southward, were extensive meadows. The 
land across the river eastward, and the uplands westward, 
presented equal prospects. The same was true of the tracts 
at the north and south ends of their main highway. Such 
being the conditions, a dual system of divisions would give 
to each inhabitant his proportion of meadow, pasture and 
woodland nearer the location of his house-lot. A general 
division might have resulted in each having widely scattered 
possessions. A farmer living at the north end, might have 
received his allotment of hay and pasture land a mile or more 
distant from his barns. This would have hindered develop- 
ment. Many sales or exchanges would have been neces- 
sary. Delay and confusion would have ensued. 

The extent to which this dual government was carried 
may be inferred from its persistence after the organization 
of the town. Each plantation continued to pass orders 
concerning its own welfare. They held separate meetings, 
on occasion, at the same time and place as the town meeting. 
Their acts are sometimes recorded with the town's votes. 1 
From the beginning of town organization, these plantations 
were equally represented among the townsmen and other 
officers, though at first they were not so designated. 2 Each 
had its constable, highway surveyor, hayward, fence viewer 
and herder. On each side, there was a pound. Soon this 
custom was so recognized that officers were named as repre- 
sentatives of one or the other. 3 After 1650, the townsmen 
are usually so designated in the records until 1687, and 
sometimes later, when the East-side obtained a place among 
them. 4 Nor was this dual representation a mere matter of 
comity between the plantations. It was carried into the 
management of the town's business and government. The 
townsmen exercised a certain special jurisdiction or responsi- 

l " Hartford Town Votes" (Vol. VI, Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll.), I: 34, 61, 74, 111. 

1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 4, 8, 41, 58, 64, 79, etc. 

3 Ibid., I: 95, 97, etc. * Ibid., I: 285. 



54 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

bility over the affairs of the "Side" they represented. The 
town fixed the rate of taxation, but each side collected its 
own proportion, and kept separate accounts. 1 Indeed, it 
is believed that it was largely this necessity they were under, 
of doing business with the Colony as one settled community, 
that led them to an early election of townsmen. 

Did the North-side Plantation adopt some form of agree- 
ment, like the founders of Agawam? The presumption is 
that they did, and that the conditions of their distributions 
were a part of it. Probably we have evidence of such an 
agreement in the record of town votes. It begins with three 
numbered paragraphs, followed by the statement: "Vppon 
these Three Condycons all [the 1 ] Land that is given in the 
Towne is given vppon." The heading is "Hartforde 1635." 
As the town was not so named until February 21, 1636-7, 
this was written at a later date. The handwriting is that of 
William Spencer, who did not remove from Newtown until 
1638, and died in 1640. The conditions themselves would 
not have been so worded in 1635, referring to land as return- 
ing "vnto the hands of the Towne agayne," when it was the 
property of the inhabitants. In the author's opinion, the 
explanation is, that late in 1639, they had occasion to 
enforce the condition allowing title to land only after four 
years' residence. 2 This made it desirable that the original 
action should be incorporated in the town's records. Wil- 
liam Spencer, therefore, made this summary from the North- 
side book and entered it under the true date, "1635." If 
this was the fact, the lost book of the pioneers' plantation 
probably contained their original agreement, of which these 
conditions were a part. 

Let us pursue further a critical examination of Hartford's 
book of town votes. William Spencer had been the efficient 
and experienced town clerk in Newtown, Massachusetts. 
Most of the early entries in this book are in his well-known 
handwriting. 3 He was one of the committee appointed by 

1 Ibid., I: 70, 92, 101, 112, 113, 116-118, etc. 

1 Ibid., I: 13. 

3 On the following pages of the printed volume, the added bracketed numbers 
indicate the pages of the original volume which are in the handwriting of William 
Spencer: pp. 1 [11], 2 [12], 8 [13], 10 [115], 11 [14], 13 [3], 14 [4], 16 [5], 17 [6], 19 [2], 
20 [1], 21 [A], 23 [B], 25 [7], 27 [8], 28 [9], 30 [10], 32 [47, 1st half], 36 [50 Agreement 



ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 55 

the General Court to review the laws and orders of the 
Colony, in 1639. This would naturally suggest a similar 
service for the town. On December 26th, at an adjourned 
session of their first legal town meeting, Edward Hopkins, 
Thomas Welles, John Steele and John Talcott were chosen 
to assist the townsmen and "to Inquier w l ordrs stand in 
forse w * 1 are of generall Concernm 1 w * 1 are not recorded." x 
This was a further reason why William Spencer should 
transcribe the above-named conditions. He also added all 
important orders then in force, found in the North-side 
Plantation book. Following the conditions, are four orders 
without caption or date. The internal evidence, however, 
indicates that they belong to the year 1637. 2 One provides 
for a guard during public worship. This was a proper 
precaution after the Pequot War. Another, orders each 
inhabitant to have a ladder, to reach the roof of his house, 
doubtless in case of fire. A third, forbids the taking of 
stones at the falls, near the home of Thomas Lord. These 
two orders were timely in 1637, when the settlers were 
extensively engaged in house building. In that year, also, 
Thomas Scott, owner of an adjoining adventurer lot, might 
well have been appointed to keep in repair the bridge across 
Gully Brook, leading to Allyn's mill. Following these 
orders, he recorded, under January 1, 1638-9, the articles 
conferring and limiting the powers of townsmen, and several 
orders of November 16, 1639. These entries fill pages 11 
and 12 of the original volume. On the next page, he began, 
in proper form, the record of their town meeting, December 
23, 1639. This is not the extent of our indebtedness to 
William Spencer. He continued as townsman to keep 
the records during the following months, when the inhabi- 
tants were forming the body of proprietors as hereafter 
related. His valuable service was then ended by his 
death. 

Our only method of determining the date of the organiza- 
tion of the town of Hartford, is by a study of these town 
votes. Let us trace their annual elections backward, from 

of April 15, 1640]. Cf. photographed page in Records of the Town and Selectmen of 
Cambridge, p. 9, and Hartford Town Votes, Vol. I, frontispiece. 
1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 10. 2 Ibid., I: 1, 2. 



56 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

the "Genrall Meeting of the whole Towne the 23 th Decem- 
ber 1639." At that time William Westwood and William 
Spencer, inhabitants of the North-side, and Nathaniel Ward 
and John Moody, inhabitants of the South-side, were 
elected townsmen. It was also voted : " That the sd Towns- 
men should haue the same power that those had the year 
before." There were, then, townsmen the previous year, 
probably, with powers recently defined. The above town 
officers served until January 21 [11?] 1 640-41. x On that 
date, the next meeting was held, and January became the 
stated month for several years. 

The predecessors of these townsmen, we may assume, 
were elected in December, 1638, and served one year. 
Gregory Wolterton of the South-side, was one of them, for, 
under date August 16, 1639, there is an account of money 
paid to him as "townsman," and he was reckoned with as 
"last Townsman," March 6, 1639-40. 2 William Wads- 
worth of the North-side, was another. He had been " towns- 
man," and rendered his account as such "desr this 10 th 
1640," within the year customarily allowed. 3 We have no 
hint of any others. Perhaps there were only these two, but 
the last two articles, of January 1, 1638-9, giving them "the 
power of the whole to order the Comon occations of the 
Towne," seem to indicate that there were others. 4 

We interpret the above action as to the powers of towns- 
men, as showing that the town had been recently organized. 
Still there had been two townsmen before those last named. 
On August 16, 1639, John Talcott, of the North-side, and 
Samuel Wakeman, of the South-side, discharged their 
accounts, each for the period " when he was townesman." 6 
As their terms had then expired, they must have served 
during the year ending in December 1638. The natural 
inference is that they had been in office the full term of one 
year, and nothing appears to the contrary. If such was the 
fact, they were elected in December, 1637. To that year, 
it is believed, the above-named orders, recorded without 
caption, belonged, and, if so, they are doubtless a fragment- 
ary record of Hartford's first election of townsmen. 

1 Ibid., I: 39-41. 2 Ibid., I: 4, 30. 3 Ibid., I: 7. 

* Ibid., I: 2, 3. * Ibid., I: 4. 



ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 57 

It was not until the autumn of 1637, after the Indians had 
been conquered, that the colonists felt secure of the future. 
Then they found themselves burdened with a war debt. 
In November, the General Court voted wages to the soldiers 
for their service. Each plantation had its share of this 
burden. Soon afterwards, it was apportioned. A colonial 
treasurer was chosen, and collectors were named in each 
settlement. In all its dealings with the Colony, Hartford 
had been treated as one plantation. Nor could this dual 
settlement have acted as it did, without some concerted 
action among its inhabitants. We conjecture, therefore, 
that, as they had such common interests, and were in fact 
one people, they chose townsmen in December 1637, to 
express this unity, adjust their taxes on an equitable basis, 
and, perhaps, also to further such town organization as they 
had already determined. Unlike any of the other original 
settlements, Hartford could have such organization without 
abandoning the plantation estate, which was most advan- 
tageous for their unfinished distributions of land. That 
there was early indifference among some to this action, may 
be indicated by the town's vote, January 7, 1639-40, requir- 
ing every inhabitant to attend the "general meeting," and 
remain through its session under penalty of six pence. The 
only responsibility these early townsmen actually assumed, 
as disclosed in the records, was a financial one for their 
respective plantations. Such officers were very different 
in authority from those afterwards elected by vote of the 
General Court to order the affairs of the town. 

We come thus to consider what may be characterized as 
the most sensational disclosure of these town votes. The 
inhabitants of Hartford, having chosen townsmen for their 
own purposes without authority from the General Court, 
took further action, which can be best stated by placing 
the original entries of their town votes and the colonial 
records relating to it in chronological order. 
"September 1639: 

"It is ordered that Jo Steele shall be Regester of euery 
mans lands in this towne." 

Hartford Town Votes, I. 5, 7. 



58 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

"Octob r the 10 th , 1639: 

"The Townes aforesayd shall each of them p r vide a 
Ledger Booke, with an Index or alphabett vnto the same: 
Also shall choose one who shall be a Towne Clerke or Regis- 
ter, who shall before the Generall Court in Aprill next, 
record every man's house and land already graunted and 
measured out to him, with the bounds & quantity of the 

Connecticut Colonial Records, 1 : 37. 

"The 16th off Novembr 1639: 

"Itis ordrd that John Steele shalbe Register or Towne 
Clarke to record all [lands] in the Register booke according 
to [the order of the] genrall Court [ ] is [ ] . . ." 

Hartford Town Votes, I: 4. 

"Aprell XI. 1640: 

"Mr. Steele is returned Recorder for the Towne of Hart- 
ford, and hath brought into the Courte 114 coppyes of the 
severall p r cells of land belonging to & conserneing 114 

k Connecticut Colonial Records, I: 48. 

These entries in the records, taken in connection with 
other facts, seem to the author to speak for themselves. 
The election of a town clerk was, perhaps, the proper step 
in the progress of Hartford's affairs, but, in September 
1639, their premature town organization had no legal stand- 
ing with the General Court of the Colony. In adopting the 
Constitution, the inhabitants had made over to the Com- 
monwealth all their rights. The General Court must first 
authorize them "to choose their owne officers" and provide 
for the election of such a clerk, which it did October 10, 
1639. Then, and then only, did the town have legal stand- 
ing and could proceed to such an election. Therefore, on 
November 16, 1639, John Steele was reelected town clerk, 
according to the order of the General Court. On April 
11, 1640, that election was returned to that body with those 
of Windsor and Wethersfield. The town of Hartford, like 
a forward pupil, hastened to make its bow to the good dame, 
who is supposed to preside over Connecticut's councils. 



ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 59 

It was "too previous," and was sent back to reenter her 
royal presence as one of the three original towns. 

The order of the General Court, October 10th, as to town 
organization, was merely an authorization of such action. 
It conferred the necessary power. No particulars of local 
government were prescribed. The only officer each town 
was ordered to choose was a town clerk. It was assumed 
that they would appoint men "to order the affayres of the 
Towne," and some of their duties as to the estates of dece- 
dents were specified, but the details of such an election were 
left to local judgment, in view of the conditions. The 
General Court did, indeed, give power to each town to 
choose three, five or seven of its chief inhabitants and con- 
stitute them a town court for the trial of minor offences. 
This, however, was optional. There is no evidence that 
Hartford ever had such a court. This was clearly a plan to 
provide communities that were inconveniently remote, with 
the authority of a court. Hartford had no such necessity. 
There were no reasons why a plantation could not proceed 
under this act to choose three, five or seven men to order 
the affairs of the town and, at the same time, constitute 
them a town court. It is evident, therefore, that Hartford 
was in a position, when the General Court acted, to proceed 
at once with town organization. The claim is made that it 
is the oldest organized town in Connecticut. 

When did the other river plantations of Connecticut organ- 
ize as towns? There are few original records to assist us 
in answering this important question, but there are more 
than has been generally supposed. Having now some ac- 
quaintance with plantation government, we can better 
understand familiar records. All the settlements were 
plantations, but the conditions in Windsor and Wethersfield 
were altogether different from those in Hartford. No dual 
plantation life urged town government upon either of them. 
They had been settled by different companies of inhabit- 
ants. As owners of the land, each had full liberty to con- 
duct its local affairs according to the prevailing opinions of 
the voters. 

In early records, we do not find any other terms used con- 
cerning Windsor than such as were applicable to a planta- 



60 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

tion. On May 15, 1637, the agreement as to the purchase 
of the Plymouth Company's lands names as the grantees 
the "inhabitants of Windsor." ! They were the owners, 
and the subsequent division was made among them. The 
committee appointed to settle the differences between 
Mathew Allyn and Windsor, concerning the reserved por- 
tion of these lands, in its report dated January 4, 1638-9, 
ten days only before the adoption of the Constitution, de- 
clared that Mr. Allyn should be subject to the orders of the 
"Plantation of Wyndsor." That report was signed by 
John Haynes, Roger Ludlow, Edward Hopkins and William 
Phelps. 2 Windsor's principal divisions of land had not 
long been completed when the General Court ordered the 
election of a Town Clerk or Register. The choice of Bray 
Rosseter was returned to the Court April 11, 1640. He 
began apparently to record those lands in the town's book 
October 10th, perhaps making use of earlier plantation 
records. On January 27, 1640-41, his first return was made 
to the Secretary of the Colony. The formula used in both 
instances was that a grant was made "fro the Plantation." 3 
Some later grants are recorded in the town's book as "from 
the towne." 

There is not the slightest documentary evidence that 
Windsor had chosen townsmen, or effected any town organi- 
zation before the authorization of the General Court. It 
had no good reason for such action. In the General Court, 
it was represented by committees of the inhabitants, like 
the other plantations. There are grounds to suspect that 
this was altogether satisfactory to Windsor people. Their 
sentiments were strongly democratic, probably because of 
the influence of Roger Ludlow and other leaders among 
them. They could not interrupt their plantation divisions 
of land by town organization, without the prior formation 
of a body of proprietors. This they were in no haste to do, 
or Roger Ludlow would have been expeditious in ripening 
certain court orders upon which such action depended. 
He was a member of the committee appointed for this 

1 Windsor Land Records, I: 227; Stiles's Hut. of Windsor, I: 34, 35, 41. 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 53, 54. 

1 See Windsor Land Records, Vol. I., and Col. Land Records, Vol. I, 1640-1653. 



ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 61 

service, and naturally depended on by the others to 
perform it. 

That Windsor's town organization was based upon the 
General Court's action in 1639, is proved by its own records. 
A single leaf of its original town votes is extant in the collec- 
tions of the Connecticut Historical Society. On its two 
pages, twelve votes are recorded in the handwriting of Bray 
Rosseter, elected town clerk between October 10, 1639 and 
April 11, 1640. The votes are numbered from 28 to 39. 
The date of the first is unknown, as it belonged to an earlier 
meeting. Ten votes were passed at four meetings, held 
October 4, 1641, November 5, 1641, February 21, 1641-2 
and April 4, 1642. There is a single vote of another meeting, 
held June 3, 1642. It is evident that twenty-eight votes 
were recorded before October 4, 1641. Assuming that this 
book was begun when the plantation changed to town 
estate, more votes were probably passed at its first meeting 
than the later average. By any reasonable estimate, it 
does not seem that the first meeting could have been held 
before the winter of 1639-40. The dates indicate that the 
inhabitants intended to have bi-monthly meetings as pro- 
vided in the Court's action. The last vote, dated June 3, 
1642, is as follows: 

"M r Hill, M r Gaylard, Tho: Fford, Bray Rofseter, 
Tho: Thorneton, Henry Woolcott & John Moore ar chofen 
to agitate the affayres of the towne [?] to the order and 
power giuen by the Court, for the yeare enfuing. M r 
Hill is chofen Moderator." 

It is evident that Windsor, in organizing its town govern- 
ment, proceeded under the Court's act empowering it "by 
a generall consent" to constitute a town court, choosing 
the same body to order the affairs of the town. It thus 
had "seven men," a moderator and bi-monthly meetings. 
Since these are so named in the earlier votes, there had 
been at least one earlier election. The obsolete word "agi- 
tate" meant that these men were to "act as agents for" 
the town. In the preceding votes they had considered such 
matters as were usually performed by townsmen. The 
sequel is found in Windsor's town votes, ten years later. 
They were then choosing seven men named "townsmen" 



62 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

"to order the afayers of the town," but this body was at the 
same time holding court for the trial of minor cases. In- 
deed, three of the seven men were the same persons, and, in 
place of Bray Rosseter, was Mathew Grant their town 
clerk. 1 Such a form of local government was well suited to 
the conditions, Windsor being an inconvenient distance 
from the courts held at Hartford. The same General 
Court that gave authority for it appointed a committee 
to urge the planters at Pequannock, whither Roger Ludlow 
had gone, to adopt a similar government. 2 We may infer 
that he was the father of this expedient. 

We have fewer records to assist us in fathoming the 
mystery of early organization in Wethersfield. An interpre- 
tation of those we have, justifies an opinion. Three of the 
four river settlements were first established as plantations. 
There is no reason to believe that Wethersfield was an excep- 
tion. The same terms were applied to its early estate 
throughout the records. Their town clerk, Mathew Mitchell, 
dated his first return of lands to the Colony February 24, 
1640-41. It was of lands "belonging to y e Inhabitants" 
of Wethersfield. About the same time, he began his entries 
in the town's land records. This action had certainly been 
preceded by a period of turmoil in Wethersfield, extending 
back for more than a year. It had concerned the respec- 
tive rights of certain parties in the land. In the autumn 
of 1639, Mathew Mitchell came under the Court's displeasure, 
for words spoken to or concerning Clement Chaplin, the 
ruling elder of the church. 3 A difference also arose "about 
the measure of some ground" between some of the inhab- 
itants and Rev. Henry Smith, their pastor, whose fault is 
later said to have been his "acting in the ciuell occations of 
the Towne." 4 Two Hartford magistrates were sent thither 
to adjust the matter. During this period, Mathew Mitchell 
had been chosen town clerk. He was returned as such 
April 11, 1640, on the same day as Bray Rosseter of Windsor 
and John Steele of Hartford. Being under the Court's 
censure, he was "found vncapable of the place." Nor 

1 Windsor's Book of Town Acts, I: 4-11. 

2 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 36; II: 108; Orcutt's Hist, of Stratford, I: 79-81. 
» Conn. Col. Rec, I: 40, 48, 51, 52, 55. 

* Ibid., I: 44, 45, 86, 87, 90, 97, 98. 



ORGANIZATION OF THE TOWN 63 

was he accepted until July 2nd, after he had made his ac- 
knowledgment to Mr. Chaplin. On that day, John Evans 
was fined "for his contempte ag l the Townsmen." l A 
month earlier, Richard Gildersleve had been before the Court 
"for casteing out p r nitious speeches, tending to the detri- 
ment & dishonor" of the Commonwealth. 2 It is evident 
that there had been intense feeling. One party seems to 
have represented the Church, and another the Town. We 
are not surprised, therefore, at the disclosures of a record 
dated April 10, 1640. 3 Then the Court had before it, for 
interpretation, a certain agreement, between "The Thirty- 
four Men," the Town and the Church in Wethersfield. 
There are indications that it had been recently made. The 
Thirty -four Men were the proprietors. The Church was 
probably a party to it, because of certain tracts that had 
been given to be used as glebe land for its maintenance. 
The Town was concerned for its future interests. Subse- 
quently, grants were made both by the Church and the 
Town. The proprietors also conducted their own divisions 
of new tracts. 

There seems to the author to be only one explanation of 
these conditions. The inhabitants of Wethersfield's planta- 
tion, soon after the General Court authorized town organiza- 
tion, formed their body of proprietors, as Hartford did, to 
determine who were the rightful owners of the undivided 
lands. These Thirty-four Men then made an agreement 
with the Church, for the adjustment of certain prior rights, 
and with the Town, that more recent inhabitants might 
have a share in the lands. In effecting this agreement, 
dissensions arose that were not easily settled. Indeed, 
some of the town's best families removed elsewhere. The 
town's earliest choice seems to have been of five men to 
order its affairs. It subsequently varied the number. 
These early townsmen may have exercised their right to sit 
as a town court; but Wethersfield was nearer Hartford and 
appears to have been in sympathy with its ideas of court 
procedure. We know enough of the early discord in its 
church to justify the inference that it made more difficult 
the transition from plantation to town estate. 

1 Ibid., I: 55. 2 Ibid., I: 51. 3 Ibid., I: 63. 



CHAPTER V 
CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 

The avenue through which one should approach the adop- 
tion of the Constitution of 1639, under which Connecticut 
government was established, is that which was followed by 
the founders of the Colony. It is marked by merestones 
all the way. Of their own free will, they travelled it, seek- 
ing to realize an ideal, the fundamental principle of which 
they had definitely conceived, but which they had not 
wrought into form in some of its features. Historians have 
usually assumed that the democracy of this government 
was without any logical antecedents, and due solely to the 
inspiration of Thomas Hooker's sermon on constitutional 
government, preached on May 31, 1638. This belief sug- 
gests the query whether that eminent divine had only then 
arrived at such opinions. It is here claimed that he and 
some of his associates had adopted the fundamental princi- 
ple of democracy before their emigration, that the Colonial 
Records reveal its practice in Connecticut from the begin- 
ning, and that his famous sermon commemorates the ex- 
pected realization of their hopes in the adoption of a written 
constitution. Connecticut government was a natural de- 
velopment among a free people. It inherited no little vigor 
from the Mother Colony. Massachusetts people had them- 
selves deprecated some of those features in which it was a 
new departure. The emigration movement to Connecti- 
cut was due, far more than has been recognized, to the 
legitimate causes of colonization. An inviting gateway 
was opened westward, and the current of emigration flowed 
through it. This being the case, however, a new oppor- 
tunity was offered to establish a government in which the 
dissent of some could find relief without division. Inde- 
pendent opinions here found a field. Such as shared them 
naturally removed thither. Thus the democratic principles 



CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 65 

that were strong in the leaders were furnished with a con- 
genial environment. The truth, which we can hardly say 
they went into the wilderness to establish, increased in 
popularity. At last they gave their ideal being. 

The manner in which the agreement between the emigrants 
to Connecticut and the agents of the Warwick patentees 
came about has been already discussed. To state the fact 
boldly — as a consideration for the former's settlement 
under the patent, the latter made over to them the govern- 
ment. This agreement was embodied in the so-called 
"Commission for a Provisional Government" — a docu- 
ment often neglected by historians, but very important in 
tracing the course of Connecticut government. It is as 
follows : 

"A Comission graunted to seuall P r sons to governe the 
People att Conecticott for the Space of a Yeare nowe 
nexte comeing, an Exemplificacon whereof ensueth: 

"Whereas, vpon some reason & grounds, there are to 
remove from this o r comonwealth & body of the Mattachu- 
setts in America dyv[ r s] of o r loveing ffriends, neighb r s 
ffreemen & members of Newe Towne, Dorchest 1 ", Waterton, 
& other places, whoe are resolved to transplant themselues 
& their estates vnto the Ryver of Conecticott, there to 
reside & inhabite, & to that end dyv rs are there already, & 
dyv rs others shortly to goe, wee, in this present Court 
assembled, on the behalfe of o r said memb rs , & John Win- 
throp, Jun r , Esq, Goun r , appoyncted by certaine noble 
personages & men of quallitie interesed in the said ryv r , 
w° h are yet in England, on their behalfe, have had a serious 
consideracon there[on], & thinke it meete that where there 
are a people to sitt down & cohabite, there will followe, 
vpon occacon, some cause of difference, as also dyvers mis- 
deamean rs , w ch will require a speedy redresse; & in regard 
of the distance of place, this state and goumt cannot take 
notice of the same as to apply timely remedy, or to dispence 
equall iustice to them & their affaires, as may be desired; 
& in regard the said noble psonages and men of quallitie 
have something ingaged themselues & their estates in the 
planting of the said ryver, & by vertue of a pattent, doe 
require jurisdiccon of the said place & people, & neither the 



66 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

mindes of the said psonages (they being writ vnto) are as 
yet knowen, nor any manner of goiimt is yet agreed on, & 
there being a necessitie, as aforesaid, that some present 
goumt may be obserued, wee therefore thinke mee[te], & 
soe order, that Roger Ludlowe, Esq, Wiflm Pinchon, 
Esq, John Steele, Willm Swaine, Henry Smyth, Willm 
Phe[lpes], Willm Westwood, & Andrewe Ward, or the 
greater pte of them, shall have full power & aucthoritie to 
hear & determine in a iudiciall way, by witnesses vpon 
oathe examine, w l [ h in] the said plantacon, all those differ- 
ences w ch may arise betweene ptie & ptie, as also, vpon 
misdemean 1 ", to inflicte corporall punishm 1 or imprisonm 1 , 
to ffine & levy the same if occacon soe require, to make & 
decree such orders, for the present, that may be for the 
peaceable & quiett ordering the affaires of the said planta- 
con, both in tradeing, planting, building, lotts, millitarie 
dissipline, defensiue warr, (if neede soe require,) as shall 
best conduce to the publique good of the same, & that the 
said Roger Ludlowe, Willm Pinchon, John Steele, Willm 
Swaine, Henry Smyth, Willm Phelpes, Willm Westwood, 
Andrewe Warner, or the great 1 " pte of them, shall haue 
power, vnder the great 1 " pte of their hajnds], att a day or 
dayes by them appoyncted, vpon convenient not[ice], to 
convent the said inhabitants of the said townes to any 
convenient place that they shall thinke meete, in a legall 
& open manner, by way of Court, to pceede in execute[ing] 
the power & aucthoritie aforesaide, & in case of psent 
necessitie, two of them ioyneing togeather, to inflict corpall 
punishm* vpon any offender if they see good & warrantable 
ground soe to doe; provided, alwayes, that this coinission 
shall not extende any longer time then one whole yeare from 
the date thereof, & in the meane time it shalbe lawful for 
this Court to recall the said psents if they see cause, and if 
soe be there may be a mutuall and setled goumt condis- 
cended vnto by & with the good likeing & consent of the 
saide noble psonages, or their agent, the inhabitants, & this 
comonwealthe; provided, also, that this may not be any 
preiudice to the interst of those noble psonages in the s d 
ryver & confines thereof within their seuall lymitts." 

This document was recorded at the conclusion of the 



CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 67 

proceedings of the Massachusetts General Court that met 
at Newtown, March 3, 1 635-6. * John Haynes was then the 
Governor. William Pynchon was an Assistant. Mathew 
Allyn, William Spencer and John Talcott were present 
as deputies from Newtown. This document is, obviously, 
not fully described as a "Commission of Massachusetts." 
It was such only in so far as the legal authority of its General 
Court was used to constitute a Court of Magistrates for the 
river plantations. In doing so, it acted in behalf of the 
emigrants. The grantor, if such he may be termed, was 
John Winthrop, Jun., "Governor," the regent appointed 
by the Warwick patentees. By his own commission, he 
held the right of jurisdiction in Connecticut. He thus 
made over the government to the men named, for the period 
of one year, subject to the approval of his superiors, who 
had been consulted by correspondence. No government 
was imposed upon the emigrants by Massachusetts; nor 
did it claim any such jurisdiction for itself. "The Com- 
ission of Go'm 1 Mencioned tacken from the Masachusets was 
taken Salua Jury of the enterest of the Gentlemen whoe had 
the patent of conectacut, that Comission takeinge rise from 
the desier of the people whoe Remoued whoe judged it in 
Conveniencie to goe away, w l hout any frame of Gou'm 1 ; 
not from any Clayme of the Masachusets Juridictio o r them 
by vertew of patent." 2 Of this Commission, Dr. J. Ham- 
mond Trumbull has truly said: "It was, in fact, an agree- 
ment, ratified in the presence of the Massachusetts General 
Court, between the founders of Connecticut and the repre- 
sentatives of the Earl of Warwick's grantees." 3 The 
government provided in this Commission was the creation 
of the parties who were to assume it. It took its rise from 
their desires. They would naturally nominate the eight 
magistrates. There were two from each plantation. Pyn- 
chon and Smyth were of Springfield; Ludlow and Phelps of 
Windsor; Steele and Westwood of Hartford, and Swaine 
and Ward of Wethersfield. The unit of representation, 
however, was not the plantation, but the inhabitant. No 

1 Mass. Col. Rec, I: 170, 171. 

2 Ply. Col. Rec, IX: 131; Mass. Col. Rec, I: 320, 321. 

3 Historical Notes on the Constitution of Connecticut, 1901 edn. p. 7. 



68 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

other assembly is suggested, although it is in ambiguous 
language, than one composed of the "inhabitants" of the 
plantations. The magistrates had authority to "convent" 
these upon convenient notice at any time or place. Other 
than a few essentials, the Commission does not forecast 
any manner of procedure. It carefully avoids establishing 
precedents that might embarrass them, or raising points 
unsettled as yet among themselves. It is a remarkable 
fact that no feature of it required modification at the expira- 
tion of the year. As they passed out of it, they left only a 
trail so faint that it is difficult to follow them. Consider- 
ing the circumstances, one can hardly doubt that this 
provisional government was their own product. In this 
view, it is the clue to an understanding of their procedure 
to the adoption of the Constitution. 

The one year period of this Commission began on or 
about March 3, 1635-6. Their first court was held in 
Newtown, April 26, 1636. Seven sessions were convened 
during the year. The last was February 21, 1636-7. In 
their proceedings, there was no departure from the strict 
interpretation of the Commission. The Court's authority 
was exercised in all criminal and probate matters, in em- 
powering each plantation to appoint its own military 
officer and in administering the oath to such constables as 
the inhabitants had chosen. 1 During this year, Ludlow 
Phelps, Steele and Westwood were present at every court. 
Ward was absent from the last. Swaine did not attend the 
first two, for he had not then arrived. He was made a free- 
man of Massachusetts, March 3, 1635-6, and was a deputy 
from Watertown May 25, 1636. Pynchon was present 
November 1, 1636, and Smyth, his son-in-law, did not 
attend at all. 

At the expiration of this year, the plantations were at 
liberty to make any alterations they desired in their govern- 
ment. If it was not their own choice, one would expect 
radical changes. Nothing of the kind occurred. A new 
situation certainly arose. The terms of the magistrates 
had expired. They could neither hold over, nor appoint 
their successors. Indeed, there was only one thing they 

1 Mass. Col. Rec, I: 159, 160. 



CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 69 

could do, which they doubtless did before the end of the year, 
thus giving "convenient notice" — exercise their right 
under the Commission "to convent the said inhabitants" 
at a convenient place by way of court. At all events, they 
did meet March 28, 1637. It is claimed that they made 
this a Court of Election and that the inhabitants then chose 
their magistrates. The evidence of this statement is the 
hitherto unnoticed fact, that among the magistrates then 
recorded, the name of Thomas Welles is substituted for 
that of William West wood. This change must have been 
made by election. It was evidently in order that the 
South-side Plantation of Hartford might be represented. 
Both Steele and Westwood were North-side men. Thus 
at their first meeting, they put into practice the principle 
as to the choice of magistrates by the people, afterwards 
embodied in their Constitution. So, also, it is believed, 
they began to exercise the franchise, without any restric- 
tion other than the estate which a legal and resident in- 
habitant imposed. 

The creation of this Court was an important step in their 
government's development. Yet one serious objection 
must have appeared, in such a general assembly of the 
inhabitants for election. A disproportionate power was 
given to the plantation where the court was held. Quite 
naturally, as it convened at Hartford, there would be more 
inhabitants present from that plantation. As authorized 
in the Commission, the magistrates had appointed the 
place of each meeting during the previous year. The first 
was held at Hartford, the second at Windsor, and the third 
at Wethersfield. The inconvenience of this rotation did 
not suit them. Thereafter the Court met at Hartford, the 
central town. So long as its functions were merely judicial, 
this did not matter. In an election of magistrates, this 
practice was unfair to Windsor and Wethersfield, to say 
nothing of its practical exclusion of Springfield. Those 
were times of danger from the Indians. The inhabitants 
could not all leave their homes without protectors, and 
make a trip to Hartford to vote. The idea is absurd. On 
the other hand, they recognized all the plantations as on 
an equality, not necessarily as permanent factors in govern- 



70 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

ment, but as the charter members of their infant colony. 
Thus the problem they were really trying to work out was, 
how they could reconcile in practice, the idea of the people 
as the source of authority in electing their rulers, with the 
conditions that made a fair representation of the inhabit- 
ants in the plantations impossible. Their final solution is 
given in the Constitution, but that contemplated organized 
towns, each represented by deputies, and a body of freemen. 
As yet no town governments had been formed; so they 
decided, at this first court, after the expiration of the Com- 
mission, that each company of inhabitants should be repre- 
sented in their next court, by committees, three in number, 
chosen by the inhabitants themselves, and that these 
should, as such, elect the magistrates, sharing with them the 
responsibilities of government. Thus, wherever the Court 
was held, the inhabitants had a just, and in that day, 
proportionate representation. At the same time, the 
people were the source of authority in their elections. 

The term "committee" was the proper designation for 
such a representative. That word was then used in a sense 
now obsolete. It signified that each man was an inhabit- 
ant, to whom a charge, trust or function had been com- 
mitted. An inhabitant so chosen represented the opinions 
of other inhabitants. The term was presumably used with 
design. Historians have generally considered that this 
word was synonymous with "deputy." It certainly was 
not. The deputy's office was one some of the settlers had 
filled in Massachusetts. As there used and defined in the 
records, the term "deputy" was applied to a representative 
in the General Court, chosen by the freemen of an organized 
town. 1 If the representatives in these early Connecticut 
courts had been deputies, they would have been designated 
by that familiar title in the records. They are so named as 
soon as organized towns assumed their true function under 
the Constitution. 

The Colonial Records themselves should now be followed 
with critical care, though it may be tedious. The founders 
of Connecticut, having solved their problem for the time, 
constituted the next General Court accordingly. It was 

1 Ibid., I: 118. 



CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 71 

convened May 1, 1637, and is famous as the court that 
declared war against the Pequot Indians. The inhabitants 
of each plantation were represented by committees, three 
in number, and the same magistrates were elected. It is 
not presumed, of course, that no other inhabitants were 
present. Perhaps most of the leading settlers were there. 
The committees, however, were the voting members for the 
inhabitants. As no roll is given in connection with the 
courts of June 2nd and June 26, 1637, it is thought that 
they were adjourned sessions, according to subsequent 
practice. 1 Their next court assembled November 14, 1637. 
The roll calls attention to the fact that a new election had 
been held. The companies of inhabitants are represented 
by two committees from each plantation. One of each 
delegation was a new man, and John Haynes fills the place 
of John Steele as a magistrate. There was only one other 
court held during this legislative year, February 9, 1637-8. 
The word "p r sent" after the names suggests that some of 
the members were not there, and that the roll is fragmen- 
tary. At the close of this court, the following vote was 
passed: "It is ordered y l the generall Courte now in being 
shalbe dissolved and there is noe more attendance of the 
members thereof to be expected except they be newly 
chosen in the next generall Courte." Notwithstanding 
other possible explanations, this vote is thought to indicate 
that during the year they had held two elections, carrying 
on the May court by adjournment to the election for the 
November court, which, at the present adjourned session, 
they vote to dissolve, intending to make a new beginning 
with their third year. 

Every court, whose proceedings are recorded, from May 
1, 1637 to the adoption of the Constitution was a General 
Court, though probably the magistrates held some Particu- 
lar courts. 2 Most of these courts are designated as such in 
the caption. Others are proved to have been such by the 
language and proceedings. 3 They evidently used the title 
current in Massachusetts. There a general court was one 
composed of magistrates and deputies, convened for certain 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 27, 28, 30-34, 40-42. 

2 Ibid., I: 16. ^ Ibid., I: 12, 16. 



72 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

purposes, such as election, the making of laws or the levying 
of taxes. 1 

The first court of the third year was held March 8, 1637-8. 
In this, the inhabitants of each plantation were represented 
by four committees. For the first time since the expiration 
of the Commission, William Pynchon and Henry Smyth of 
Springfield appear among the magistrates. Perhaps this 
was rather by courtesy than right, as no committees were 
present. This court seems to have adjourned to March 
22nd and then dissolved. It is evident that the inhabitants 
are now looking for a "settled order" of colonial govern- 
ment. Their attention had hitherto been engaged in 
fighting the Indians, military affairs, measures to secure 
provisions and the payment of a war debt. In each planta- 
tion they were under the necessity of making their divisions 
of land, erecting their buildings and breaking up their fields. 
We now notice an unusual procedure. The members of 
their next court, April 5, 1638, which is known to have 
been a Court of Election, are the same as those of the last, 
with the addition of committees from Springfield. The 
roll is as follows: 

Magistrates — William Pynchon, Henry Smyth, of Spring- 
field; Roger Ludlow, William Phelps, of Windsor; John 
Haynes, Thomas Welles, of Hartford; Mathew Mitchell, 
John Plumb, of W f ethersfield. 

Committees — Jehu Burr, George Moxon, of Springfield; 
Thomas Ford, George Hull, Thomas Marshall, John Mason, 
of Windsor; Edward Hopkins, John Steele, John Talcott, 
John Webster, of Hartford; John Gibbs, George Hubbard, 
Thurston Raynor, Andrew Ward, of Wethersfield. 

There was doubtless some special reason why it seemed 
wise to the inhabitants of Windsor, Hartford and Wethers- 
field to reelect the same committees, and why these should 
reelect the same magistrates. That they had begun the 
discussion of their Constitution seems most likely to have 
been that reason. Only two committees had been chosen 
from Springfield. We know that they were elected at a 
meeting of the plantation's inhabitants. The record is: 
"There was a free choyce according to an order from m r 

1 Mass. Col. Rec, I: 117. 



CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 73 

Ludloe by the plantation of two Goodmen, Committys for 
the General court to be at Hartford the 4th of April, 1638. 
The partys chosen are Mr. George Moxon and Jehue Burr." l 
Other particulars concerning this court are found in Thomas 
Hooker's letter to Governor John Winthrop, written during 
the following autumn. "At the time of our election," he 
says, "the committees from the town of Agaam came in 
with other towns, and chose their magistrates, installed them 
into their government, took oath of them for the execution 
of justice according to God, and engaged themselves to sub- 
mit to their government." 2 There cannot be any doubt, 
therefore, as to the manner in which this General Court 
was constituted. Springfield was then a plantation and 
not an organized town. Its legal inhabitants were the 
voters. They expressed the wishes of the people in the 
choice made by the committees. Nor is there the slightest 
evidence that the conditions were different in the other 
plantations. The inhabitants of Hartford's North-side 
Plantation were represented by Steele and Talcott, com- 
mittees; those of the South-side Plantation by Hopkins 
and Webster. When the committees had elected magis- 
trates, they "installed them into their government." John 
Haynes was of the North-side, and Thomas Welles of the 
South-side. Probably it was because of a desire to give 
each plantation the same voice in the decisions of this im- 
portant court, that the committees were four in number. 
So far as the founders of the Colony could devise means, 
therefore, this General Court was constituted by the in- 
habitants. 

It has been suggested, with good reason, that this court 
of April 5th adjourned to May 31, 1638, when Thomas 
Hooker delivered before its members, many others being in 
attendance, his famous sermon on constitutional govern- 
ment. 3 The discourse itself has been frequently discussed. 
We are now prepared to understand its historical relation 
to preceding events. Thomas Hooker did not then pro- 
claim as a new truth that "the foundation of authority is 
laid in the free consent of the people." It is an injustice 

1 Burt's Hist, of Springfield, I: 153. 

2 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., I: 13, U, 18. 3 Ibid., I: 19-21. 



74 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

to him to make such a claim. He had presumably held 
such an opinion two years before, when he set out from New- 
town. As the inhabitants had practiced that truth more 
than a year in their government, we may fairly assume that 
he had already taught it on more than one occasion, now 
unknown. Nor was it a new truth, to his congregation, 
that "the choice of public magistrates belongs unto the 
people by God's own allowance." That was precisely the 
principle the inhabitants of the plantations had practiced 
from the first. These are merely premises, already estab- 
lished in their experience. He is now engaged in enforcing 
the timely deduction, that "they who have power to appoint 
officers and magistrates, it is in their power, also, to set the 
bounds and limitations of the power and place unto which 
they call them." In other words, he is urging upon the in- 
habitants a further step in their progress — the enactment 
of laws according to which magistrates shall render judg- 
ment. That was the issue. He is making the plea of the 
ages for a constitutional government. It was the logical 
outcome of the steps they had already taken. In that, 
was the difference between the theories of many, as well as 
the practice in the Mother Colony and the democratic 
government that he and his associates were endeavoring to 
establish on the banks of the Connecticut River. Governor 
Winthrop, writing of his own Colony, says: "The people 
had long desired a body of laws, and thought their condi- 
tion unsafe, while so much power rested in the discretion of 
magistrates;" but "the magistrates and some of the elders" 
were not "very forward in this matter." 1 That was one 
of the points discussed between Winthrop and Hooker in 
their correspondence that season. 2 Thomas Hooker would 
not have encouraged any other development of Connecticut's 
early government, than one that tended toward the final 
adoption of a constitutional government by the people, 
which was doubtless his cherished ideal. 

After the date when Thomas Hooker preached his sermon, 
we have no records of any general courts, until January 14, 
1638-9, when the Constitution was adopted. During the 

1 Winthrop'a History, I: 388, 389. 

2 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., I: 1-18; Trumbull's Historical Notes, etc., pp. 8-10. 



CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 75 

summer the confederation of the colonies was under con- 
sideration. Their negotiations were interrupted by Massa- 
chusetts' claim of jurisdiction over Springfield. These 
affairs may have delayed action. The establishment of a 
constitutional government, however, involved matters that 
could not be hastily settled. It seems likely that whatever 
general courts were held, would have been adjourned ses- 
sions of that already elected. Otherwise, we should prob- 
ably have had some record and a list of its members. If 
other courts were constituted by election, they were com- 
posed, it is thought, of the same committees and magistrates 
that had been already twice elected, contrary to previous 
custom, apparently because the framing of the Constitution 
had been committed to them. 

How was the Constitution of 1639 adopted? Interest 
has gathered about this question, because it has been 
thought that the manner of its adoption determines a fact 
of large importance in our constitutional history. That, 
we think, is not true. However the Constitution was 
adopted, it was the act of resident inhabitants in three 
Connecticut plantations. It originated with and was 
adopted by the people. Some have believed that it was 
adopted in a mass meeting of the "inhabitants and resi- 
dents." Others have argued that it was adopted by the 
representatives of three organized towns, convened in a 
general court. The author claims that we are not restricted 
to these two opinions. Neither of them is in harmony 
with the Colonial Records, and yet there is truth in both 
of them. 1 The advocates of the former view have appealed 
to the language of the Constitution's preamble: "We the 
Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Harteford and 
Wethersfield, now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon 
the River of Conectecotte." The phrase, "Inhabitants and 
Residents," was then in common use in New England. It 
meant simply "resident inhabitants," and excluded such 
legal inhabitants as were non-residents. The Commission 
itself had been issued to those who were to "reside and 
inhabite" or "sitt down & cohabite" in Connecticut. The 

1 New England States, I: 448 ff.; Connecticut Magazine, V: 86 ff.; Anniversary 
of the Adoption of the Constitution, p. 26. 



76 THE COLOMAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

preamble states the exact truth. The Constitution was 
adopted by the resident inhabitants. That could be, 
however, without a mass meeting. Such a gathering was 
excluded by their own principle of having a fair representa- 
tion. It would have been less dignified and orderly, to say 
nothing of the improbability of such a meeting in times of 
danger from the Indians and in mid-winter. Such a mass 
meeting, convened in Hartford, would have been composed 
largely of local inhabitants. Those who advocate the 
second view have based it upon the assumption that there 
were then three organized towns, represented as such by 
committees. From this we dissent. They have, however, 
correctly interpreted the Colonial Records. These do not 
contain the least evidence of a general gathering of the 
inhabitants. In the author's opinion, the Constitution of 
1639 was adopted at a meeting of the General Court, and by 
that body, which was constituted of committees and magis- 
trates, representing, directly and indirectly, the resident 
inhabitants of three Connecticut plantations. There was 
a General Court convened at Hartford, January 14, 1638-9. 
We have, in the records, one of its votes. There is no 
reason to think that the founders departed on this occasion 
from their established practice, nor that this Court was 
constituted in any other way than was customary in carry- 
ing out the will of the people. It seems most likely that 
this General Court was composed of the committees and 
magistrates already named in the roll of April 5, 1638, with 
the exception of the representatives of Springfield, who had 
withdrawn. In that case, the men who participated in 
its action were all prominent inhabitants. Four of the six 
from Hartford attained gubernatorial honors. Of the 
remaining two, one became the Secretary, and the other the 
Treasurer of the Colony. Other leading inhabitants were 
doubtless present, the pastors, teachers and elders among 
them. Their assembly is historically named a "General 
Court"; but, in modern terms, it was rather a Constitutional 
Convention. Hartford then had an immature town organi- 
zation. Still it had no representation, as such, in that 
body. The Constitution they had framed was the inspira- 
tion of the people. It was adopted by the people, and its 



JL 




The Adoption op- the Fundamental Orders 



CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 77 

blessings were for the people. We can dimly see through 
the mists their solemn assembly in the meeting-house of 
Hartford, in their midst "the first written constitution 
in the history of nations"; and it is as dramatic a scene as 
the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 

The attention of historians has been so largely directed 
to the study of records preceding this event, that those 
which follow it have escaped due notice. There we find the 
solution of some of our enigmas. The vote of adoption did 
not, in fact, put their government into immediate opera- 
tion. That was impossible. Their plan had provided for 
some factors that were not in existence. These had to be 
created. As in setting up a machine, there were various 
parts to be assembled. The inhabitants had founded a 
Commonwealth. In so doing, they had vested the "supreme 
power" in a General Court. Some of the rights they had 
held were thus suspended until that Court acted. 

The adoption of the Constitution modified their rights of 
franchise. Under plantation government, the inhabitants 
had been the voters in all local affairs and had chosen the 
committees. Such as took the oath of fidelity, still had the 
right to vote for deputies. To fill that office, however, 
or to vote for the governor and magistrates, they must now 
be made freemen. This standing was attained by vote of 
the General Court and taking the freeman's oath. Hitherto 
there had been no such class. Under these circumstances, 
their government could only continue as before, until the 
body of freemen was constituted. This was their first act. 
We conjecture that the Court of January 14, 1638-9, ad- 
journed to February 18th for that purpose. 1 Many in- 
habitants were certainly made freemen at an early date — 
all who served as magistrates or deputies. The average 
standing of those admitted later indicates that the principal 
inhabitants had already qualified. On April 11, 1639, 
these freemen held their first election of governor and 
magistrates. Still the plantations, not being as yet or- 
ganized towns, were then unprepared to act under the 
Constitution in the choice of deputies. The inhabitants, 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 30. Cf. pp. 41, 42. 



78 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

therefore, elected, as formerly, "committees," which fact 
the records prove. 

In their new Commonwealth, justice was to be adminis- 
tered according to established laws. As yet, they had no 
such code. Little opportunity had been given to become 
acquainted with those laws that had been enacted. On 
this matter the Court took action October 10, 1639. Wyllys, 
Webster and Spencer were then appointed to review "all 
former orders and lawes," record those of "publique con- 
cernement," and deliver them to the Secretary to be pub- 
lished to the towns. Within twenty days after the end of 
the Court, he was to provide a copy of all the penal and 
general laws "for the government of the Commonwealth," 
deliver the same to the constables of each town, who were, 
within four days, to publish them at some public meeting, 
and then cause them to be written in a book to be kept for 
the town's use, and read publicly every year. 1 Thus the 
earliest code of Connecticut laws was prepared in manu- 
script. 

The inhabitants, moreover, had been the lawful owners 
of the undistributed lands in the several plantations; but, 
in the Constitution, they had explicitly made over to the 
Court their right to "dispose of lands vndisposed of." 
Their act was an effectual conveyance to the Colony, from 
which they expected to receive later their title. This 
suspended all distributions of new tracts until the Court 
acted. Such was, in fact, its effect. We have found no 
evidence in the records of any new distributions between 
January 14, 1638-9 and October 10, 1639. On the latter 
date, the General Court by an order gave to each of the 
three towns the "power to dispose of their owne lands 
vndisposed of, and all other comodityes arysing out of their 
owne lymitts bounded out by the Court." - In order that 
they might proceed in such distributions, however, it was 
necessary to form the original owners into a body of pro- 
prietors in each town, for later residents were not admitted 

1 Ibid., I: 3(5, 39. Several manuscript copies of the Code of 1650, with the 
addition of session acts to 1708 are extant. Windsor's copy is among the collec- 
tions of the Connecticut Historical Society and Guilford's is in the Pequot Library 

2 Ibid., I: 30. 



CONNECTICUT'S EARLY GOVERNMENT 79 

to an equal participation in the inhabitants' property. 
It was this situation that gave rise to the formation of "The 
Thirty-four Men," or proprietors, of Wethersfield. In an 
adjustment of claims, they made the agreement with the 
Church and the Town, out of which their land disputes 
arose. The inhabitants of Hartford began similar action 
on December 26, 1639. Their procedure is traced in a latex 
chapter on the proprietors. 

Above all, the Constitution had provided for organized 
towns as the local factors in their government. The in- 
habitants had constituted the Commonwealth; now its 
General Court must authorize the creation of towns. It 
was from that supreme power, confirmed to the Colony in 
the Charter of 1662, that all town rights emanated. As a 
distinguished Connecticut lawyer, Hon. Henry C. Robinson, 
once said, "Under the original fundamental orders, under 
the charter and under the constitution of 1818, the towns 
have had no power, except as it was given them by the 
organic law or by the general court." The Constitution 
provided that the three original towns should each have four 
deputies, according to the historic principle of equality 
among them as plantations, there being then about the 
same population in each. It also provided, however, that 
"whatsoeuer other Townes shall be hereafter added," 
"they shall send so many deputy es as the Courte shall 
judge meete, a reasonable p r portion to the nuber of Freemen 
that are in the said Townes." l So that Supreme Power, 
which the people had created, pledged itself to secure unto 
its constituent communities a reasonable representation of 
the people. 

That the General Court experienced unexpected delay in 
securing the passage of these orders is proved by its own 
records. These inform us that, at their spring election, 
on account of "the state of the present ty[me] and the many 
occations that ly vppon men," it being their planting season, 
the Court appointed a committee "to ripen orders formerly 
in agitacon against [the] next meeting of the Court." 2 
This committee consisted of John Haynes, governor; Roger 
Ludlow, deputy governor; George Wyllys, Edward Hopkins, 

1 Ibid., I: 24. 2 Ibid., I: 27, 28. 



80 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Thomas Welles, magistrates; and John Steele and William 
Spencer, committees. The orders in question concerned 
the adjustment of their Colonial government. At the 
court September 10th, Roger Ludlow being absent, Hopkins 
Wells, Steele and Spencer, were "intreated to ripen some 
orders that were left vnfinished the former Court, as about 
p r vition of settling of lands, testaments of the deceased, and 
recording spetiall passages of P r vidence." 1 These orders 
were voted at an adjourned session, October 10th. They 
constitute action of vital importance in the solution of 
Connecticut's historical enigmas. The only one that has 
no known sequel is the last provision. If only Roger 
Ludlow Esq., Captain John Mason, Rev. Samuel Stone, 
Elder William Goodwin, Elder Clement Chaplin and Mr. 
George Hubbard, who were appointed to this service, had 
left us a symposium on the "spetiall passages of Providence" 
in his dealing with the River Plantations, they would have 
won the lasting gratitude of posterity. 

Thus at their next Court of Election, April 9, 1640, the 
committees of the inhabitants give place in the records to 
the "Deputies" of three organized towns. The Ship of 
State had crossed the bar, and, with the recognition of a 
guiding Providence hitherto, it put out to sea. 

1 Ibid., I: 34. 



CHAPTER VI 
INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 

The Indian paths that followed the Connecticut River 
southward from Agawam, were much frequented. Here 
and there along them, were the forts, favorite haunts and 
planting fields of the natives. These River Indians were 
all of one general tribe, called Sequins, but they were divided 
into bands, according to their residence and sachemship. 
In 1633, Natawanute had sold the planting field of the 
Matianuck or Windsor Indians to the Plymouth traders. 
At the time of the settlement of Hartford, Sequassen was 
the sachem of the Suckiaug Indians. From his village, a 
well-known trail led southward to Pyquaug. There, in 
early times, was the residence of the chief sachem of the 
Sequin tribe, Sowheag, who sold land to the planters of 
Wethersfield and removed to Mattabeset, near Middle- 
town. In their later residence, these natives were termed 
"Wongunks," from their location at the river's bend, 
"Wongunk" meaning bend. The Dutch called this sachem 
"the chief Sequeen." Sequassen of Suckiaug was his son. 
Other bands of this tribe resided east of the river. One of 
these was the Hockanum Indians, who lived along the river 
of that name in East Hartford. Another was the Podunks, 
residing along the Podunk River, between East Hartford 
and South Windsor, where they had a famous fort. The 
Tunxis Indians are sometimes referred to as a sub-clan of 
those at Suckiaug. Probably this relationship arose from 
intermarriage and long association in their winter residence. 
It is proposed to locate as nearly as possible the homes of 
these aborigines within the bounds of early Hartford, 
which now the white man inherits. 

In his description of the view upon which the founders 
looked on their arrival at Hartford, Stuart has the follow- 
ing statement: "Here and there, scattered in open spaces 
on the banks of the Great River, and along the Little River 



82 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

here and there, beneath tall and majestic trees or on little 
cleared elevations in different parts of our present city, 
the smoke rises from numerous wigwams." ! It is an in- 
teresting picture. Acquaintance with Indian customs, 
however, would lead to the conclusion that their wigwams 
were gathered in one locality. Their practice was to retire 
inland during the winter season, to more secluded vales 
and forests, or to shut themselves within their elevated 
strongholds. Their residence near the river would have 
been at some favorite fishing-place. Some of these Indians 
doubtless remained near the pioneers during the winter of 
1635-6. They are thought to have furnished the whites 
with food. In the springtime we shall find them in a vil- 
lage of Indian wigwams, ready for the fishing. The name of 
the Suckiaug Indians points to the river meadows. It was 
derived from the word " sucki-auke," meaning "black earth." 
Later authorities inform us that the North and South 
meadows were partly wooded, with forbidding swamps in 
places. The Little Meadow was, according to a tradition 
that the land records favor, the Indians' planting-ground. 
Their name seems most likely, therefore, to point to this 
tract. It was between the Indian path and the river. In 
that case, their village would have been near at hand. The 
homes of the pioneers looked out upon this Indian field. 
The native village could not have been south of them. 
There the rivulet made a boundary between them and the 
Dutch. There was a tract on the north, however, quite 
similar in its features to those the Indians usually chose 
for this purpose. It bordered upon the North Meadow 
Creek on the east. The path from Matianuck led to or 
near it. The creek emptied into the Connecticut River 
at the landing-place. It thus afforded a harbor for canoes. 
At times these could ascend it for some distance. In the 
springtime it was a good fishing-place and has been to recent 
times. Porter says of this location: "There is a tradition 
that it was once an Indian camp ground, and Indian im- 
plements of war have been found on the premises." 2 That 
these natives continued in the neighborhood in 1637, and 

1 Scaeva's Hartford in the Olden Time, p. 18. 

2 Porter's Historical Notices, No. £, p. £6. 



INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 83 

were friends of the settlers, is certain. Their presence 
exerted no little influence in the declaration of war against 
the Pequots. Thomas Hooker himself wrote to Governor 
Winthrop of their relations in this wise: "Though we feele 
nether the tyme nor our strenght fitt for such a service, yet 
the Indians here, our frends, werr so importunate with vs 
to make warr presently, that vnlesse we had attempted some 
thing, we had delivered our persons vnto contempt of base 
feare & cowardise, & caused them to turn enemyes agaynst 
vs. " ! Danger was encompassing the river settlements 
like a prairie fire. A general uprising of the Indians was 
threatened. Savages who had never tested English valor 
naturally attributed inactivity to cowardice. Even their 
friends were infected. Suddenly, on April 23rd, came the 
Wethersfield massacre. It was a challenge they must accept, 
or soon be overwhelmed. So, on May 1st, the General 
Court declared an offensive war against the Pequots and, 
ere long, their little fleet was afloat on the Great River. 
"Agaynst our mynds" wrote Thomas Hooker, "being 
constrayned by necessaty, we haue sent out a company, 
taking some Indians for guides with vs"; and before they 
set out their reverend leader gave them his blessing. 2 In 
due time, they attacked the Indians' stronghold at Mystic. 
The power of the most dangerous tribe in New England was 
crushed forever. 

If the Suckiaug Indians were on such friendly terms with 
the English before the destruction of their traditional ene- 
mies, the success of that war must have augmented their 
obligations. A reward was suitable. The English wanted 
their lands and did not want them for near neighbors. All 
cleared land was very valuable. The Little Meadow ap- 
pears to have been divided in 1636. Most of its lots were 
small, as if for garden use. Some of these were bounded 
eastward on the creek. They extended as far north as the 
cow-yard. If there was still farther north another open 
tract, it would have been a temptation to the early settlers. 
Such land for immediate use was a necessity. 

1 k Ser. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., VI: 388, 389. 

2 Mason's "Brief History" in Mather's Early History of New England, ed. 
1864, p. 156. 



84 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

It seems very probable, therefore, that the Soldiers' 
Field was the original location of the Indian village, that 
their wigwams were standing there when the pioneers 
arrived, and that the natives did help them during the winter. 
Upon the coming of Hooker's company in 163G, the natives 
came under the protection of a considerable force. They 
evidently did what they could to instigate war against the 
Pequots. When this was forced upon the English, the 
natives became their allies. Thus, when the little army 
returned home, victorious beyond their hopes, it was a 
natural thing for the Indians, in their gratitude over the 
destruction of their enemies, to surrender to the English 
the site of their village to be divided among the soldiers, 
and themselves remove, as we know they did about this 
time, to the South Meadow. There was never, so far as 
we know, any Indian fort on this tract. Centinel Hill 
may at some time have served such a purpose. These In- 
dians, being a clan of the Sequins, would more likely seek 
protection elsewhere in time of war. In fact, Governor 
Hopkins said in 1640, that the Indian "owners had fled 
away to seek assistance from their people." This was doubt- 
less true, but it happened sometime before the occupation 
of the land by the English, whose title the Governor was 
then defending. 

Our quest now takes us to the South Meadow, whither 
Sequassen and his band went to make their last stand against 
civilization. The land the Dutch claimed to have bought, 
was situated, they said, "in the jurisdiction of the Chief 
Sequeen," whose tribe had been subdued by the Pequots. 
From the latter's sachem, as the conqueror, their purchase 
had been made. This was done, as they said, "with the 
free will and consent of the Sequeen." 1 The narrative 
thus continues: "It is further expressly conditioned by 
this contract and assented to by the aforenamed chief, that 
the Sequeen should dwell with us, all at the request, and to 
the great joy of the Sequeen Altarbaenhoot [Natawanute] 
and all interested tribes. This has taken place, on the part 
of the Sequeen, with the knowledge of Margaretinne [Mi- 
antinomo] chief of Sloop's Bay" [Narragansett Bay]. In 

1 Holland Documents, I: 543, II: 139. 








■ /\ 



;-y 



A 






H 




%^ 






&S< 




V 



'. *v 




JL7V- 



INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 85 

a Dutch report of their boundaries, written in 1649, there is 
a similar statement. " For greater security," it says, "the 
Sequeen and his tribe on the Conitte Cock, went to dwell 
close by Fort Hope, which is also expressly conditioned in 
the purchase of Conitte Cock, as can be proved by Son- 
quassen the son of the late Sequeen, who is still living." l 
Some have supposed that these assertions are untrue, having 
been made in support of their claims to the land. Others 
have thought that they refer to the settlement of Sequas- 
sen's Indians in the South Meadow, as no other band has 
been known to have lived there. It is here claimed that 
the Dutch statements are not only true, but also that they 
offer the only explanation of certain facts in our own records. 
There is nothing improbable in the claim that the Dutch 
purchased their land of a Pequot sachem. The Pequots 
were given to such sales. Nor is it unlikely that the Dutch 
offered protection to some Sequins, who consented to the 
bargain. It was common for the Dutch to have Indian 
neighbors in their wilderness life. If these Indians went to 
dwell under the protection of the House of Hope, that event 
occurred in 1633, soon after the Dutch made their purchase. 
The erection of an Indian fort for protection against their 
enemies, would have been their first undertaking. 

That there was in early times an Indian fort in the South 
Meadow, is established by our records. A Dutch map of 
the Connecticut River, dated in 1666, has upon it the usual 
sign for a fort south of the House of Hope. 2 This could 
have been none other than an Indian fort. Whether it 
was intended to locate this fort in the South Meadow or 
at Wethersfield, is perhaps uncertain. Our earliest record 
is of action at a town meeting, January 29, 1643-4. A 
committee was then appointed to "inquier of [the] statt of 
the land y* ded belong to the Indians aptayning to Soaquasen 
or to him Sellfe & of that y l ded belong to manorolos 
whether it doth belong to the towne or nott & if it do so 
then it shall be desposed of by them by Letting of it for 
the tounes vse." 3 This must mean that there were two 

1 Ibid., I: 543. 

2 Winsor's Narr. and Crit. Hist, of America, III: 333. 

3 Hartford Town Votes, I: 68, 69. 



86 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

tracts or parts of the "Indian Land" in the South Meadow, 
one that had belonged to Sequassen or the remnant of his 
people, and the other to Manorolos, who it is here claimed 
was a Sequin chief who had lived near the Dutch. This 
record is significant at that date. During the previous 
season, Sequassen had been at war with Uncas, who was 
himself at enmity with Miantinomo, the Narragansett 
chief. Various attempts had been made upon Uncas's life 
by poison and sorcery, and had failed. "That being discou- 
ered," the records say, "some of Sequassons company, an 
Indian Sagomore allyed to, & an intimate confederate w th 
Myantinomo, shott at Vncas as hee was going downe Con- 
ectacutt Riuer w th a arrow or two." 1 According to the treaty 
of 1638, Uncas appealed to Governor Haynes, who, having 
been unsuccessful in effecting a reconciliation, because 
Sequassen preferred war rather than sacrifice the friendship 
of Miantinomo, left them to fight it out. This they pres- 
ently did. Uncas soon attacked Sequassen on his reserva- 
tion, "Killed seven or eight of his men, wounded 13, burnt 
his wigwams and carried away the booty." 2 This event 
occurred in the early summer of 1643, and the battlefield 
was in the South Meadow. Miantinomo then took up the 
conflict, that resulted so disastrously to him, as hereafter 
related. It seems probable, therefore, that, after his defeat 
and the destruction of his village, Sequassen deserted the 
land he had occupied, and the English began immediately 
to consider its future improvement. Soon afterwards, he 
was suspected of a conspiracy against the English and 
became a fugitive until 1650. He was then permitted to 
return to Hartford. 

No report of the above committee is recorded. The land 
records indicate that soon thereafter the southwest portion 
of the Indian Land was allotted among the English. In 
1657, there were several owners who had bought of John 
Crow land, which has been identified as part of this tract. 
We have no record of the original distribution of it. The 
explanation may be, that a tract of acreage unnamed, in 
that "which was called the Indian Land," was given by the 
town to Elder William Goodwin, in lieu of his land in the 

1 Ply. Col. Rec., IX: 11. 2 Winthrop's History, II: 155. 



INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 87 

North Meadow and for other service. This may have 
passed to John Crow, his son-in-law. The land occupied 
by Sequassen was mostly west of the highway to the "Forty 
Acres." It was bounded on the west by the " Great Swamp " 
lots. East of the roadway, there were several parcels ex- 
tending to the Connecticut River, which then flowed not 
far away. To these lots the change in the river's course 
has added much land since. A tradition that was current 
in the middle of the last century, locates Sequassen's wig- 
wams on what is known as the Richard Brown lot. This 
may be true. Indian land that has been traced was in that 
locality. In that neighborhood certainly, the Indian chief 
who first welcomed the founders of Hartford, was living 
when he suffered a blow from which he never recovered. 

Let us follow the history of Manorolos's land. It was 
situated on the river, not a great distance from the Dutch- 
men's land. Indians lived there for many years. The 
acreage was ever decreasing in extent. In 1657, a new com- 
mittee of the town was appointed "to enquire after thos 
that now enjoy y e Indian Land," and to require rent of 
them. 1 They reported the next year that there were eight 
and a half acres in the possession of five persons. Among 
these tenants was Lieutenant Thomas Bull, who had two 
acres. The renting continued. In 1659, the town granted 
to Lieutenant Bull his two acres, "as long as he himself 
continnueth an Inhabitant in Hartford . . . and then the 
land is to return unto y e Towne." 2 Twenty-five years 
elapsed before his death. The condition of the grant had 
probably been forgotten, and the land was considered as 
his own. In his will, he bequeathed to his son Captain 
Jonathan Bull his "Two Acar Lott Lying by the Indian 
ffort by the great River's side." No one had better informa- 
tion on which to base the use of such language than that 
renowned Indian fighter. In 1663, the townsmen were 
empowered to "dispose of that land called the indians land 
in the south meadow vnto the antient natiues who have 
lived amonge vs according to their best discreetion for this 
yeare"; but, in 1683, the land, excepting that actually 
occupied by the Indians, was divided between the First 

1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 120. 2 Ibid., I: 121, 126-128. 



88 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

and Second churches, for the maintenance of the ministry. 1 
It has been traced in the town's land records to the present 
time. That of the First Church is the tract of four acres 
belonging to the "Heirs of John Barnard," as indicated on 
a map accompanying the "Proceedings at the Dedication 
of Charter Oak Hall" in 1856. It remained in the possession 
of the church, excepting for the exchange of one acre in 
1769, from the date it was received from the town to 1813. 
It was then leased for 999 years, to John Barnard, he "pay- 
ing therefor on the first day of January of each year during 
said term a yearly rent of one pepper corn if demanded." 2 
The land of the Second Church was next south of it, and the 
two acres of Lieutenant Bull next north. The Second Church 
retained its tract until 1825. The committee, as then author- 
ized, sold it to Elijah Bibbins. 3 East of this land and the 
meadow path, there was a tract of thirteen acres, also 
called "Indian Land." It was known later as "The Sands." 
This name correctly suggests the making of land on the 
west bank of the river by the change in its course. In all, 
there were originally about thirty-six acres in this northern 
tract, formerly belonging to the Indians. 

We should follow more in detail the most northerly 
portion of this tract on the river's bank. Upon it the old 
Indian fort once stood. It is part of the ten acres of Henry 
Barnard on the above named map. It can now be best 
located as near Colt's Ferry. As late as 1832, it was known 
in conveyances as the "the Indian Lot." This land actually 
remained in possession of the native owners until 1723, and 
they are proved to have been kindred of those who dwelt 
at Wongunk. In 1713, Sarah Onepenny, Indian woman, 
in a nuncupative will, bequeathed her land in the South 
Meadow to her grandson Scipio, a servant of Colonel Wil- 
liam Whiting. 4 It was set off as 4 acres, 55 rods, "which 
said piece of land is and has been reputed to belong to the 
Indians for a great many years." This woman was a rela- 
tive of Sarah Hopewell, an Indian of Wethersfield, who, in 

1 Ibid., I: 141, 212. 

2 Hartford Land Records, 13: 43, 60; 31: 170. 

3 Ibid., 44: 447,530, 531; 47: 562; 48: 183,360,361; 51: 93,174. 

4 Manwaring's Hartford Probate Records, II: 269. 



INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 89 

1704, had bequeathed her estate to Robin Mashoot, Sarah 
Onepenny and Munnumquask. 1 Another Sarah One- 
penny, daughter of the first of that name, bequeathed her 
estate, in 1727, to her nephew, Scipio Two Shoes, doubtless 
the servant above mentioned. She refers particularly to 
her "lands at a place called Wongogn near Middletown." 2 
Thus it seems that the last and sole heir of these natives, 
who had owned this northern tract of Indian land, was 
Scipio Two Shoes, Indian servant of Colonel Whiting. In 
1723 he sold this lot to his master, "being that whereon y e 
Wigwams are now Standing." It is further stated that it 
was the same land that had been given to him by his grand- 
mother. Colonel Whiting conveyed this land in 1744. It 
is then described as that "whereon the Wigwams were 
formerly standing." 3 So the old home of the aborigines 
was gone forever. There they had built their fort, in 1633, 
when they went to live under the protection of the Dutch. 
It had in time given place to the habitations of peace. One 
by one, they had stolen out of those wigwams and departed 
for the happy hunting-grounds of their fathers. At last, a 
solitary Indian youth stood there, to utter the farewell of 
his race. 

The fort these Sequins erected was not a very substantial 
structure. Of the like an early writer gives us this descrip- 
tion: "These Forts, some be fortie or fiftie foote square, 
erected of young trees, ten or twelve foote high, rammed 
into the ground, with undermining within, the earth being 
cast up for their shelter against the dischargements of their 
enemies, having loope-holes." 4 Such a fort could not have 
stood long against the spring floods. It was doubtless 
repaired frequently until the need for such a defence had 
passed. Then it was displaced by wigwams. 

There is another tract of land in this neighborhood to 
which some historic interest attaches. It extended along 
the Connecticut River northward from the fort track, 
and connected it with the Dutchmen's bouwerie. The 

1 Ibid., II: 81. 2 Ibid., II: 557. 

3 Hartford Land Records, 5: 9; 7: 76; 21: 536; 23: 29,30,142,364; 50: 117; 
51: 169; 88: 359; Hartford Probate Records, 36: 83. 

4 Wood's New England's Prospect, 1865 edn., p. 94. 



90 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

river has now washed away some of this land. A roadway 
that ran from the House of Hope to the Indian fort, was its 
boundary on the southwest. The lots into which this tract 
was divided, are designated in deeds as lying at a place 
called "Pequot Heads." It was an Indian custom, after 
their victories, to tie the scalps of their enemies to the tops 
of poles set up in a conspicuous place near their village, as 
a defiance and warning. Each great chief had a pole, which 
proclaimed his prowess. Sometimes the English were as 
barbarous in setting the heads of Indians on poles. 1 We 
conjecture that it was the practice of this custom by the 
Indians that gave this tract its name, which it received at 
an early date. It was admirably suited to the purpose, 
being in full view of all who went and came on the river. 
As Sequassen's tribe never had an opportunity to make 
such a collection of bloody trophies, except in the Pequot 
War, it seems probable and natural enough that, when he 
removed immediately afterwards to the South Meadow, he 
should dedicate this river's bank to that purpose. So these 
scalps dangled from their poles in the breezes for many a day. 
This incident led the English to name the tract "Pequot 
Heads." It is now in part the land along the Connecticut 
River, given to the City of Hartford by Mrs. Elizabeth Colt. 
There were other places west of the river where the natives 
sometimes set up their wigwams. All along the Little River 
and its branches, they had their favorite fishing-places. 
Near them they encamped at times. One of their resorts 
in Hartford was known by the Indian name "Pesiponck." 
It was near the intersection of Broad and Grand streets. 
The fact is disclosed in the will of Captain Thomas Watts. 
In 1683, he bequeathed to Martha Hannison "7| acres of 
Land called by the name of Pesiponck." This was the 
southern part of a lot that originally belonged to William 
Andrews. The Rocky Hill brook ran through it. The 
name "Pesiponck," or Pesuppauog in the Narragansett 
tongue, means, literally, "they are sweating." It indicates 
that there was once within the bounds of Hartford, probably 
in the hillside ascending westward from the brook, one of 
the Indians' peculiar bath-houses. Roger Williams gives 

1 Trumbull's Hist, of Connecticut, I: 115. 



INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 91 

the following description of one: "This Hot-houfe is a 
kind of little Cell or Cave, fix or eight foot over, round, 
made on the fide of a hill, (commonly by fome Rivulet or 
Brooke:) into this frequently the men enter after they have 
exceedingly heated it with ftore of wood, laid upon an heape 
of ftones in the middle. When they have taken out the 
fire, the ftones keep ftill a great heat: Ten, twelve, twenty, 
more or leffe, enter at once ftarke naked, leaving their 
coats, fmall breeches (or aprons) at the doore, with one to 
keepe all: here doe they fit round thefe hot ftones an houre 
or more, taking Tobacco, difcourfing, and fweating together; 
which fweating they ufe for two ends: Firft, to cleanfe 
their skin: secondly, to purge their bodies, which doubt- 
leffe is a great meanes of preferving them, and recovering 
them from difeafes efpecially from the French difease, 
which by fweating and fome potions, they perfectly and 
fpeedily cure: when they come forth (which is matter of 
admiration) I have feene them runne (Summer and Winter) 
into the Brooks to coole them, without the leaft hurt." l 
It seems, therefore, that this was the first Turkish bath- 
room in Hartford. 

Let us cross the Connecticut River to East Hartford, to 
locate the Indian fort of the Hockanum tribe, whose resi- 
dence was within the ancient bounds of the town. Tradition 
and the discovery of Indian relics fix the location of this 
fort at a place long known as "Fort Hill." Concerning this 
place, Goodwin says: "Traces of such an enclosure still 
remain in Goodwin's pasture, one-fourth of a mile east of 
the postoffice. . . . The steep hillside having been its de- 
fence and outlook on three sides, and an embankment and 
palisades upon the north." 2 This is north of the Hockanum 
River and south of Burnside Avenue. The site is readily 
recognized by the excavation of sand which composed the 
hill. No place could have been more wisely chosen by the 
Indians. Its elevation, proximity to a river once famous 
for its fishing, and the adjoining swamp, were features con- 
sidered desirable by the natives. 

1 "Williams' Indian Key" in Narr. Club Publications, I: 211, 212; Trumbull's 
Indian Names of Connecticut, p. 51. 

2 Goodwin's Hist, of East Hartford, pp. 18, 23. 



92 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

The documentary evidence that this was once the site 
of their Indian fort is found in the record of Sergeant Wil- 
liam Buckland's home lot. He died in 1724, and left to his 
wife Elizabeth and three sons, his "home lott between y e 
country road and y e Pine Swamp or y e Indian Fort." The 
younger sons deeded to William Buckland, who sold to 
Colonel John Pitkin. This lot is mentioned in the town 
votes in connection with the road that was laid out east- 
ward in 1679. 

The Indian history of this fort, if known, would probably 
recite some stories of sanguinary warfare. The one-eyed 
Tantonimo is thought by some to have chosen it as his 
stronghold in 1656, when he had a quarrel with Sequassen 
and Uncas. The natives who lived there were in reality a 
band of the Podunks. Tantonimo was a sachem of one 
part of this tribe. He had given refuge to a young Indian, 
who had killed a sagamore living at Mattabeset, a kinsman 
of Sequassen. The latter chief had then returned to Hart- 
ford. Probably he was living at the fort in the South 
Meadow, with the other Indians. He took up the quarrel, 
and made an ally of Uncas who, also, had a grievance 
against the Podunks. The General Court made an effort 
to adjust the matter. It failed. The parties were then 
allowed to fight, only it was stipulated that it should not 
be on the west side of the river, nor to the injury of any on 
the east side. The forces are said to have met near the 
Hockanum River — a very advantageous place for Tan- 
tonimo, with a stronghold near at hand. They did not 
fight, however, for Uncas, fearing the result, contented 
himself with a threat to bring upon the Podunks the dread- 
ful Mohawks. He afterwards used their fear of this tribe 
to effect his purpose by strategy. 1 With this episode, 
Sequassen disappears from our history. He probably died 
soon afterwards. 

The chief seat of the Podunk Indians was near the northern 
boundary of East Hartford. Here we locate another native 
fort. Adriaen Block's narrative, in speaking of the Indians 
along the river, makes the following statements: "In the 
year 1614 they had a village resembling a fort for protection 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 304, 305; De Forest's History of the Indians, pp. 249-252. 



INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 93 

against the attacks of their enemies. They are called 
Nowaas and the Sagamore was named Moraheick. This 
place is situated in latitude 41° 48'." As Block gave the 
name of their sachem and their Indian word for bread, we 
may infer that he had some intercourse with them or visited 
their village. The place has been identified on the best 
authority as Podunk fort. The name "Nowaas" in Dutch, 
says Dr. Trumbull, was equivalent to "Nowashe," the 
name borne in the native tongue by the land between the 
Podunk and Scantic rivers. Stiles states that the early 
records of Windsor indicate that the first settlers did not 
call these natives "Podunk Indians," but probably "Mo- 
hegans." They are so named in Tantonimo's deed of South 
Windsor lands in 1636. "Podunk" means "place of fire." 
Perhaps the stream was so called because of the proximity 
of their village fires, and the English gave them the name of 
their residence. There seems to have been some relation- 
ship between these Indians and the Mohegans, antedating 
the marriage of Arramamet's daughter, Songonosk, to 
Joshua, the son of Uncas. 

The site of their Indian village or fort is approximately 
determined by the land records. The southern boundary 
of the Podunk lands was south of the former mouth of the 
river, and just north of a lot, granted in 1644 to Samuel 
Ketchell. Here the town built a division fence in 1650. 
From Tantonimo, Thomas Burnham and certain partners 
bought a large tract of the Indian land. A controversy 
arose concerning it. The southernmost strip of this tract 
passed to William Williams, to whom the town confirmed 
it in 1662. In the records, it is bounded "on land now 
in y e management of Thorn: Burnam: wher y e fort stood 
on y e North." The General Court finally made a division 
of the land claimed by Burnham, among the Indians, who 
sold their lots from time to time to English owners. 1 An 
extant drawing of the western portion of this land, shows 
that the Podunk River then entered the Connecticut farther 
north than at present. 2 The Indian tract was mainly north 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, II: 306; Windsor Land Records, 2: 100; Hartford Land 
Records, 2: 103. 

2 State Archives: Private Controversies, I: 42. 



94 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

of the stream, running to a point at the southwest end by 
the river's side. In its course, the Podunk River, at its 
most northerly point within the tract where the fort stood, 
made a semi-circular curve southward. Its former channel 
can now be traced by the swale. The land thus partially 
surrounded by the river is high ground, and, without other 
evidence, would seem to have been the location of the fort. 
Here tradition also has located it. Indian relics have been 
found on this site in great abundance. It is only about 
one-third of a mile in a direct line to the Connecticut River. 
The Dutch navigator could easily have seen this fort from 
the deck of the Onrust. Part at least of the intervening tract 
was a planting-ground. Block refers to their cultivation 
of maize as if he had seen it. How long this Indian fort 
remained can not be determined. It continued for many 
years to be the site of their Indian village. Probably this 
declined rapidly after King Philip's War, when some of these 
natives sided against the English and went on the war-path 
never to return. This site is not far west of the main high- 
way in South Windsor. 

Of all the Indian forts along the Connecticut River, this 
of Podunk has the best title to fame. In prehistoric times 
it was doubtless the stronghold of a large population. 
They had been greatly wasted before the coining of the white 
man. Thence, Wahginnacut went to Boston in 1631, to 
invite the settlement of the English. In this fort, Nata- 
wanute and Sequassen were often visitors. There the sachem 
Arramamet spent some of his later years. At its councils, 
the wilyUncas, and Foxen, his crafty adviser, plotted mischief 
among the river bands. One of its last Indian owners was 
Toto's squaw — Toto of Windsor, who is said to have revealed 
to the English, in 1675, the plot against Springfield. 1 That 
timely warning of danger saved the town from a massacre. 

Unless we give unwarranted authority to tradition, we 
must conclude that it was somewhere within these Podunk 
lands that the greatest tragedy of our Indian history was 
enacted — the execution of Miantinomo. It may almost 
be said that this was the sequel to Uncas's destruction of 
Sequassen's wigwams in the South Meadow, for the warfare 

1 Hutchinson's History, I: 295; Stiles's Hist, of Windsor, I: 110, 118, 130, 1S1. 



INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 95 

Miantinomo thereafter waged against Uncas did not cease 
until the Narragansett chief was a captive in the fortress at 
Mohegan. The victor brought his prisoner to Hartford, as 
ordered. There the Governor and magistrates referred the 
disposition of his life to the Commissioners of the United 
Colonies, who met in Boston, September 7, 1643. Mian- 
tinomo was a prisoner, meanwhile, in Hartford's jail. The 
final decision arrived at by the counsel of five ministers 
was, that "Uncas was advised to take away the life of 
Myantenomo," but in his own jurisdiction and not in the 
English plantations. "According to this agreement," says 
Winthrop, "the commissioners, at their return to Connecti- 
cut, sent for Onkus, and acquainted him therewith, who 
readily undertook the execution, and taking Miantun- 
nomoh along with him, in the way between Hartford 
and Windsor (where Onkus hath some men dwell,) Onkus' 
brother, following after Miantunnomoh, clave his head 
with an hatchet, some English being present." * The 
plan the commissioners had made was that Uncas should 
be sent for to come to Hartford "with some considerable 
number of his best and trusty est men." This he doubtless 
did, lodging them among his kindred at Podunk. The 
purpose was to provide against the rescue of Miantinomo 
by his own people, which was feared. No other place 
between Hartford and Windsor than Podunk could have 
been referred to. That was, in a sense, within the juris- 
diction of Uncas. Thus, at some unknown spot not far 
from Hartford, the Narragansett chief, who occupies the 
most conspicuous place in the romance of Indian heroes, 
met his death. Those who review such events in the clearer 
light of this age, can hardly think it strange that, when 
John Eliot, the "apostle to the Indians," being in Hartford 
at a council of ministers, assembled a congregation of 
natives to hear his plea for the Gospel, and asked them 
"whether they were willing to accept of Jesus Christ, the 
Savior, as he had now been presented to them," the sachems 
and old men scornfully and angrily answered, "No." 2 

1 Winthrop's History, II: 155, 157-162; Ply. Col. Rec, IX: 10-12, 14, 15; 
Caulkins's Hist, of Norioich, 1874 edn., pp. 34-37. 

2 De Forest's History of the Indians, p. 252. 



96 



THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 



An interesting incident of Hartford's Indian history 
occurred in 1675. In the autumn, the warehouse and barn 
of Major James Richards, on the south bank of the Little 
River, were destroyed by fire. The property had originally 
belonged to Governor Hopkins. The Indians were sus- 
pected of setting the fire. In writing of the affair to Gover- 
nor Winthrop, Major Richards states that Massecup had 
been at his house shortly before the flames broke out. 1 His 
letters also give us more interesting information. They 
tell us that Massecup was Miantinomo's son and a brother 
of the Narragansett sachem, who was Canonchet. The 
records state that Sequassen was allied to and an intimate 
confederate of Miantinomo. 2 In 1670, Massecup [Masseec- 
kup] had been the first signer of the Indian deed to the 
English, for which reason a Hartford street now bears his 
name. It seems probable, therefore, that Miantinomo had 
made a marriage alliance with Sequassen's family, and that 
his son was, in 1670, the head of the tribe. As information 
had been received that the Indians were planning an attack 
on Hartford, and flankers near certain houses of the town 
had been ordered, this incident created great excitement. 3 
"The indian men were all commanded into the fchool- 
houfe and a guard fet," wrote Major Richards, "for the 
people were foe imaged that we had much a doe to keepe 
them from falling upon them." The Indians sent word to 
Canonchet of Massecup's captivity. Finally ten hostages 
were given as a pledge of their loyalty. Massecup was 
among them. One of the number escaped. The others 
were confined for some time in a house provided for the 
purpose, apparently Daniel Garrad's on the south side of 
Pearl Street. 4 The authorities were convinced, later, of 
the Indians' loyalty, but Massecup's confinement continued. 
He was in the prison from 1677 to 1679. 5 Many of these 

1 Winthrop Papers in MS. collections of Mass. Hist. Soc. 

2 Ply. Col. Rec, IX: 11. » Conn. Col. Rec, II: 267, 375. « Ibid., II: 376-380. 
6 There is some satisfaction, under the circumstances, in the following items 

from John Talcott's Account Book, showing that this hostage received hospitable 
treatment: "To a trucking Cloath coat being 2 yards delivered to Mafecup," 
"Pair of britches for Mafecup in prifon," "To Mafecup pint liq rs ," "More," 
"To Mafecup medifons in his sicknefs," "To one p 1 of Liq rs to Mafecup for 
gripings, l d : mor p l l d ." 



INDIAN FORTS IN HARTFORD 97 

Hartford Indians enlisted in King Philip's War and did good 
service. There were eight warriors under the command of 
Captain Nassehegan, who did scout duty. To the loyalty 
of the River Indians, the Colony owed much in those trouble- 
some times. 

All authorities agree that the remnant of the Suckiaug 
tribe removed finally to Farmington. In 1725, there were 
living in the South Meadow, it is said, about thirty or forty 
natives who depended largely upon the charity of the inhab- 
itants. At Farmington they were absorbed in the Tunxis 
tribe. Nine Indians claiming rights in the Suckiaug land 
had signed the deed of 1670. One of these was Wawarme, 
"sister and only heir of Sequassen." Perhaps she was the 
mother of Massecup. Another was Currecombe, the later 
story of whose family can be followed in the history of the 
Christian Indians, who removed from the West Woods of 
Farmington to Brotherton, New York. Of the others we 
have no trace. It is probable that there is an Indian bury- 
ing-ground somewhere in the South Meadow, where many 
of the natives, who once lived there, sleep. So the race, 
whose wigwams were clustered underneath Hartford's 
elms, has disappeared and left its memorials to the white 
man. 



CHAPTER VII 
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 

On the banks of the Little River, in the spring of 1636, two 
types of European civilization met, to contest their rights 
in the western world. One was the English colonist, with 
all the ideals of his Puritan faith, seeking a new home for 
himself and his children. The other was the Dutch trader, 
satisfied with the liberality that is bred in an adventurous 
life, a soldier of no mean fame and a clever merchant, seek- 
ing the profits of the wilderness. Whether it be credited 
to their virtues or faults, the fact is that these two were 
unfitted by their character and training to live together as 
good neighbors. One or the other must prevail. They 
met like two adverse currents of the sea. One was moving 
eastward from Manhattan, the other westward from Ply- 
mouth Rock. There could not but be a surge in the waters; 
and, this conflict, which is illustrated so clearly in our local 
history, was, in reality, the same that then engaged like 
elements elsewhere. It may seem to be insignificant in its 
issues and petty in its details, but underneath all was the 
vital question, whether the spirit and arms of England or 
Holland were, in the end, to control the destiny of the 
American colonies. That was not a matter that kings could 
settle. It was determined by the genius of colonization — 
that wonderful spirit which multiplies homes under adver- 
sities and makes the wilderness blossom like the rose. Puri- 
tan emigration soon overcame the advantages of early occu- 
pation by Dutch traders. Whatever may have been the 
right of their respective claims on the Connecticut River, 
this spirit of colonization animated the Puritan governor, 
when he told DeVries, the Dutch navigator, that "it was 
a sin to let such rich land, which produced such fine corn, 
lie uncultivated." These words were not offered as a justi- 
fication for any unlawful act. From the colonists' point 



THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 99 

of view, this was thought to be sufficient reason for insisting 
upon their rights of ownership. The author will attempt 
merely a recital of the facts involved in this controversy 
between the Dutch and the English, leaving the reader to 
exercise his judicial faculties, or to render a verdict, as most 
writers have done, according to his prejudices. 

The discovery of the Connecticut River has been generally 
attributed by historians to Adriaen Block. In 1614, having 
completed his yacht, the Onrust [Restless], he set sail from 
Manhattan, to explore the bays and rivers to the eastward. 
He ascended the river as far as the falls. Because of the 
quality of its waters, he named it Versche Rivier [Fresh 
River], though it was called in the Indian tongue Quinni- 
tuk-ut [on long river]. The early settlers often spoke of it 
as the "Great River," in distinction from the stream that 
emptied into it, named the "Little River." To the west- 
ward at Manhattan, through the voyage of Henry Hudson 
in 1609, the Dutch had secured the rights of discovery 
and trade. Accordingly, on October 11, 1614, the States 
General had granted to the "Directors of New Netherland," 
for a period of three years, the right "exclusively to visit 
and navigate to the aforesaid newly-discovered lands lying 
in America, between New France and Virginia, the sea-coasts 
whereof extend from the fortieth to the forty-fifth degree of 
latitude, now named New Netherland." 1 This privilege 
expired by limitation and a renewal was refused. 2 Occu- 
pation and exploration continued as before, until June 3, 
1621, when the States General granted a patent to the 
West India Company, investing it with rights of govern- 
ment and trade between Newfoundland and the Straits of 
Magellan. No parallels of latitude were specified, but New 
Netherland was understood to be included. This company 
became effective in 1623, and for many years was the repre- 
sentative of Holland in the western world. 

It is not known that any European visited the Connecti- 
cut River for nine years after its discovery. 3 Then the 

1 Brodhead's History of New York, I: 63. 2 Ibid., I: 89, 90. 

3 Brodhead erroneously located the scene of Jacob Eelkens' ill treatment of an 
Indian sachem, in 1622, on the Connecticut River near Wethersfield (Brodhead's 
History, I: 146, 152, 168). The original account, in Wassenaer's Historie, states 
that it happened at "Sickenames" (Doc. Hist, of N. Y., 8° edn. Ill: 45, 46). The 



100 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

West India Company began the location of fortified trading 
posts in New Netherland. Several ports were built, and it 
was afterwards claimed that in 1623 the Dutch took posses- 
sion of the Connecticut River, and began the erection of the 
House of Hope. 1 This is very doubtful; but, if true, it 
was not a factor of any importance in the subsequent con- 
troversy. The Dutch traders did visit the coast as far east 
as Cape Cod, at intervals for years, and perhaps entered the 
Connecticut River. 

In 1626, the Pilgrims of Plymouth began to trade. They 
soon established a southern port at Manomet, on Buzzard's 
Bay, twenty miles from their plantation, all the distance 
except a "carry" of five miles being a waterway. Here 
they located a trading house and built a pinnace. 2 The 
following spring they were surprised to receive a friendly 
letter from Isaak de Rasieres, Secretary of the Dutch 
government at Manhattan, the purport of which was an 
invitation to trade. 3 In his reply, Governor Bradford, 
while reciprocating their good wishes, expressly cautioned 
the Dutch against trading within the territory granted by 
his Majesty the King of England to the Council for New 
England, which extended to the fortieth degree of latitude. 
To this the Dutch responded, maintaining their right to 
trade in those parts, which, they claimed, they had carried 
on for twenty-six years. The Plymouth governor could 
not be thus outdone, and replied that the English had begun 
to navigate and plant thereabouts in the time of Queen 
Elizabeth, "well nigh forty years ago as appeareth by her 
patents and royal grants." This correspondence of 1627 
culminated in a visit from the Dutch secretary in the autumn, 
and at that time Governor Bradford urged upon the Dutch 
the necessity of clearing their title to plant in those parts, 
"lest it be a bone of division" between them. 4 

historian identified that name with "Sequin," but it was the Indian designation of 
Mystic River (Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 13). 

1 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., II: 276 and note; Holland Documents, I: 
290; Doc. Hist, of N. Y., 8° edn. Ill: 49, 50. Cf. Brodhead's History, I: 151 n., 
153 n.; Winthrop's History, I: 135. 

2 Bradford's History, p. 2*1. 3 Ibid., pp. 222, 223. 

* 1 Ser. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., Ill: 51 ff.; N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., I: 
362 ff. 



THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 101 

The English evidently considered that they had legal 
rights antedating those of the Dutch, and superior to theirs 
within certain parallels of latitude. Bradford, like other 
early historians, dated the discoveries of Englishmen from 
the voyages of the Cabots, and their occupation from the 
venture of Bartholomew Gosnold in 1602. l King James I 
had by patent, in 1606, opened all the territory between the 
thirty-fourth and forty-fifth degrees north latitude to two 
companies, the southern being the London or Virginia Com- 
pany, and the northern the Plymouth Company. On 
November 3, 1620, seven months before the date of the 
West India Company's charter, he had reconstituted the 
latter, with extraordinary powers, as the Council for New 
England, including the territory between the fortieth and 
forty-eighth parallels. This was the parent corporation of 
all early grants. The Pilgrims, and other English settlers 
later, based their rights upon these facts, and they enter- 
tained no intention of abandoning them, however they might 
be involved in disputes with the Dutch at Manhattan or 
elsewhere. 

The subsequent conduct of the Plymouth traders is evi- 
dence of this attitude. In the above intercourse with the 
Dutch, they had learned, as probably also from the Indians, 
of the existence and location of the Connecticut River. 
The former had commended it unto them, says Bradford, 
"for a fine place both for plantation and trade, and wished 
them to make use of it." They had, however, been other- 
wise engaged. Yet when they began their trading they 
accepted these proposals, though not in the way of coloniza- 
tion under the West India Company, which the Dutch had 
desired. The sequel should be given in their historian's 
own language: "And having now good store of comodities, 
and allso need to looke out wher they could advantage them 
selves to help them out of their great ingagments, they now 
begane to send that way to discover y e same, and trade with 
y e natives. They found it to be a fine place, but had no 
great store of trade; but y e Indeans excused y e same in 
regard of y e season, and the fear y e Indans were in of their 
enemise. So they tried diverce times, not with out profite, 

1 Bradford's History, p. 77; Hutchinson's History, I: 1. 



102 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

but saw y e most certainty would be by keeping a house 
ther, to receive y e trad when it came down out of y e inland." 1 
This passage clearly refers to early ventures on the Con- 
necticut River, conducted, doubtless, by Edward Winslow, 
and the most natural interpretation is that these visits were 
made between 1627 and 1631. 2 Brodhead, the Dutch 
historian, admits that Winslow made a voyage thither in 

1632, and "pitched upon a place for a house." 3 The date 
was certainly before the settlement of the Dutch in 1633, for 
the Governor and magistrates of Massachusetts, when 
examining the matter in 1643, received from Winslow him- 
self the testimony that he had "discouered the said fresh 
Riuer when the Duch had neither trading house nor any 
pretence to a foot of land there," and the Commissioners of 
the United Colonies made this declaration ten years later. 4 
The Indians on the river, moved by the desire to secure 
English allies against their enemies, and finding that the 
Plymouth people were not "very forward to build ther," 
solicited the help of Massachusetts. That was the purpose 
of Wahginnacut's journey to Boston in 1631, in which he 
was disappointed. Then the Plymouth traders, in 1633, 
sought the partnership of Massachusetts in such a venture; 
but, failing to secure it, they determined to make a begin- 
ning themselves. 5 

Such was the situation at the time the pioneers of these 
two nations met on the Connecticut River. Each party had 
its own view of rights secured by discovery and established 
by patent. These were in dispute between their home 
governments, and, in fact, were irreconcilable except by an 
arbitration then uncommon, or the fortunes of war. The 
Dutch were the first on the ground. Late in the spring of 

1633, acting under the authority of Wouter van Twiller, 
the newly appointed Director General of New Netherland, 

1 Bradford's History, p. 311. 

2 Prince's New England Chronology, 1826 edn., p. 434; Goodwin's Pilgrim 
Republic, p. 371. 

s Brodhead's History, I: 210; New England's Memorial, Davis's edn., App. 
p. 395. 

* Coll. Rec., X: 16; Trumbull's History, I: 30; Hutchinson's History, I: 43. 
1 Bradford's History, pp. 312, 313; Winthrop's History, I: 125. 



THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 103 

Jacob van Curler with six others, sailed up the river, and, 
having made a treaty with the Indians, June 8th, began to 
erect a blockhouse on the southern bank of the Little River. 
This they surrounded with a redoubt, and two cannon were 
mounted for its defence. They named it the "Huys de 
Hoop" [House of Hope], but for what special reason we are 
not told. 1 The Plymouth authorities, returning home after 
the disappointment of their visit to Governor Winthrop in 
July, at once made preparations to establish their river 
trading post. In the hold of their "great new barke," they 
stowed the frame of a house, with boards and nails to com- 
plete it, and such provisions as were necessary, and, under 
the command of Lieutenant William Holmes, their resolute 
expedition set sail. The house had been prepared partly 
as a defence against the Pequot Indians, who, it was expected, 
would be displeased because they were to carry with them 
Natawanute, the exiled sachem of Windsor, and restore him 
to his ancient domain. They arrived at the House of Hope, 
probably, September 16th, not surprised to find the Dutch 
located on the river, nor expecting any gracious welcome. 
"When they came up y e river," says Bradford, "the Dutch 
demanded what they intended, and whither they would goe; 
they answered, up y e river to trade (now their order was to 
goe and seat above them). They bid them strike, & stay, 
or els they would shoote them; & stood by ther ordnance 
ready fitted. They answered they had comission from y e 
Gov 1 " of Plimoth to goe up y e river to such a place, and if 
they did shoote, they must obey their order and proceede; 
they would not molest them, but would goe one. So they 
passed along, and though the Dutch threatened them hard, 
yet they shoot not. Coming to their place, they clapt up 
their house quickly, and landed their provissions, and left 
y e companie appoynted, and sent the barke home; and after- 
wards palisadoed their house aboute, and fortified them 
selves better. The Dutch sent word home to y e Monhatas 
what was done; and in proces of time, they sent a band of 
aboute 70. men, in warrlike maner, with collours displayed, 
to assaulte them; but seeing them strengtened, & that it 

1 Other forms of the name that occur in early literature are: "Fort Hope," 
"Fort Good Hope," "The Dutch House, the Hope," and "House of Good Hope." 



104 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

would cost blood, they came to parley, and returned in 
peace." * Thus the first chapter of this conflict was ended. 

The above incident brings into the light one fact that now 
becomes important: the native inhabitants, to whom the 
river lands had originally belonged, had found in the English 
the allies they had sought. Some years before, this tribe 
had been subdued by the Pequots, and made tributary to 
them. Their cause had now been espoused by the English 
in a most public manner, by the restoration of Natawanute. 
Nor is it supposed that the visit of Wahginnacut to Governor 
Winthrop had been entirely without results. In this course 
the English may have been actuated by justice or policy. 
Perhaps they were pleased to be prompted by both. The 
Dutch, on the other hand, had for some years maintained 
friendly relations in trade with the Pequots — ever since 
1626, when Peter Barentsen overcame the prejudice caused 
by Jacob Eelkens's treachery at Sickenames. As traders 
it was naturally their practice to consider the advantages, 
to be gained by their friendship. Now, therefore, in the 
matter of securing grants of land from the Indians, the alli- 
ances of each party were of great value. 

We have no record of any deed signed by the Indians, in 
which they conveyed Suckiaug lands to the Dutch. The 
evidence the latter presented in a subsequent statement of 
their case, was the record of a treaty made with the Indians, 
embodying the rights of both parties and witnessed by the 
Dutchmen who were present, as the practice was on some 
other occasions. This record is as follows: 

"Condition and Agreement entered into between Com- 
missary Jacob van Curler and the Chiefs of Sickenames, on 
the 8th of June, 1633 as follows: 

The aforesaid Curler, and the sachem named "SVapyguart 
or Tattoepan, chief of Sickenames river, and owner of the 
Fresh river of New Netherland, called, in their tongue, 
Conettecuck, have amicably agreed for the purchase and 
sale of the tract named Sickajoock, a flat extending about 
one league down along the river and one-third of a league 
in width to the high land, and beyond the kill upwards, 
being a flat extending to the next adjoining little stream, 

1 Bradford's History, pp. 313, 314. 



THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 105 

on condition that all tribes might freely, and without any 
fear or danger, resort to the purchased land for the purposes 
of trade; and whatever wars might arise between them and 
others, may be waged or carried on without any of them 
entering on our said territory. It is further expressly con- 
ditioned by this contract, and assented to by the afore- 
named chief, that the Sequeen should dwell with us, all at 
the request, and to the great joy of the Sequeen Altarbaen- 
hoot, and all interested tribes. This has taken place, on 
the part of the Sequeen, with the knowledge of Magaretinne, 
chief of Sloop's Bay. The chief of Sickenames is paid for 
the said land by Jacob Curler one piece of duffels, twenty- 
seven ells long; six axes, six kettles, eighteen knives, one 
sword-blade, one shears, and some toys. All which was 
signed by Jacob van Curler, Frederick Lubbersen, Gillis 
Pieters, Claes Jans Ruyter, Domingo Dios, Barent Jacobs 
Cool, and Pieter Louwerensen." 1 

It does not seem that there are sufficient reasons to doubt 
the main fact set forth in this record. The English at 
Hartford, and the Commissioners of the United Colonies, it 
is true, challenged the claim, and asked to see the convey- 
ance. Probably no Indian deed was given, or it would have 
been produced then or later. Still, such a purchase was 
inherently probable. There were then no reasons why the 
Dutch could not have secured land from the Pequots, as 
they repeatedly claimed they had done and the record 
asserts, for that tribe were then their friends, though they 
soon had a falling out, because the Dutch killed a Pequot 
chief. 2 The sachem named as the grantor, Wapyquart, 
was doubtless the same as WopigwoOit, who is thought 
to have been the Pequot conqueror of the Sequins. 3 They 

1 Holland Documents, II: 139, 140. See also Ibid., I: 128, 543; N. Y. Hist. 
Soc. Coll., I: 271, 272; and Ply. Col. Rec., IX: 172, 175; X: 65, 66. 

2 O'Callaghan's History, I: 157; Bradford's History, p. 349. 

3 Wopigwooit was the son of Woipeguand, sachem of the Pequots, and grand- 
son of Muckquntdowas, whose father was Tamaquashad the earliest known chief 
of that tribe (De Forest's History, pp. 66, 67). The spelling "Wapyquart" is 
nearer that generally used. Governor Stuyvesant has "Nepequate" (Ply. Col. 
Rec.,X: 66); Hazard, "Nepaquate" (State Papers, II: 263); Trumbull, "Nepu- 
quash" (History, I: 35); and Dr. Barnard "Nepaquash" (Armsmear, p. 18), 
following Stuart (Hartford in the Olden Time, p. 245). The Connecticut records 
spell the name "Nupequah," or "Nupequate" (Conn. Rec, New England, p. 124). 



106 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

may also have obtained the assent of the Narragansett 
sachem, Magaretinne, [Miantinomo] to their neighborly 
arrangement with a band of Sequins, dwelling probably 
at the other end of the South Meadow, in Wethersfield. 
It is very improbable, however, that Natawanute, if he 
is the chief mentioned as "Altarbaenhoot," was a party 
to this transaction. At the date of the record, he is believed 
to have been in exile, having fled to the English for protec- 
tion against the Pequots, and he was brought back by 
Holmes in the autumn. Apparently Governor Bradford 
did not doubt the Dutch purchase, for he says of the Plym- 
outh traders: "They did y e Dutch no wrong, for they took 
not a foote of any land they bought, but went to y e place 
above them, and bought that tract of land which belonged 
to these Indeans which they carried with them, and their 
friends, with whom y e Dutch had nothing to doe." x As 
for Sequassen, he testified in court, in 1640, that "he neu r 
sould any grownd to the Dutch." 2 The evidence seems, 
therefore, to justify the conclusion that the Dutch bought 
from the Pequots their tract of land, which comprised the 
South Meadow, extending westward to the upland, and 
northward "a musket shot" distance along the river, to 
include Dutch Point. On the other hand, the English made 
their purchases of the Sequins, the ancient owners, and, in 
so doing, they declared their opinion that the subjugation 
of this tribe by the Pequots did not give to the conquerors 
the rights of ownership in the river lands. Lord Saye and 
Sele wrote in 1642 that the "Pequots had no just but a 
usurped title." 3 This, however, was the English view of 
the matter, and was earnestly challenged by the Dutch. 

The representatives of these two nations now in disagree- 
ment over both their territorial rights and Indian titles, 
might, perhaps, have adjusted themselves to neighborly 
relations, had it not been for the settlement of the English 
under the Warwick Patent. The authorities at Plymouth 
and Boston had learned in 1633 of the Dutch venture upon 
the river. The former had sought to thwart it. Governor 
Winthrop, unwilling to join with Plymouth, for reasons that 

1 Bradford's History, p. 314. 

2 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 56. s Holland Documents, I: 128. 



THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 107 

must be a matter of conjecture, had, nevertheless, sent his 
bark to Manhattan with a commission to signify to the 
Dutch "that the king of England had granted the river and 
country of Connecticut to his own subjects," and, therefore, 
he desired them "to forbear to build there." He may have 
referred to the lands included in the Warwick Patent. 
Director van T wilier returned a courteous reply, but ex- 
pressed the hope that the English would not intrude upon a 
Dutch possession until the King of England and the States 
General could adjust the matter. 1 He further protested in 
writing on October 25th to the commander of the Plymouth 
trading house, and sent an account of proceedings to his 
superiors in Holland. 2 It was without effect. "John 
Oldham and three with him" journeyed thither that season. 
During the next summer the Newtown agents went to spy 
out the land. Finally, in the autumn of 1635, the pioneers 
of Hartford settled upon the land north of the Little River, 
and, as already stated, the compromise of the following winter 
cleared the way for occupation, under the Warwick Patent, 
of those lands claimed by the Dutch. Thus in the year 
1636, these traders of the West India Company found them- 
selves surrounded by English colonists, who professed, and 
doubtless honestly believed, that the Warwick Patent had 
established their rights. 

After the protest that the Dutch made to Elder William 
Goodwin, which was referred to the younger Winthrop, 
agent of the patentees at Saybrook fort, there was a lull in 
the storm for some years. The Dutch expressed their 
sentiments by protesting, and the English by ploughing. 
On June 9, 1639, the Dutch navigator DeVries arrived at 
the House of Hope, where Gysbert Opdyck was then the 
commissary. He thus narrates his experience as a peace- 
maker: "The commander gave me orders to make a protest 
against them, as they were using our own land, which we 
had bought of the Indians. Some of our soldiers had for- 
bidden them to put the plough into it; but they had dis- 
regarded them, and had cudgelled some of the Company's 

1 Winthrop's History, I: 134; O'Callaghan's History, I: 152; Brodhead's His- 
tory, I: 239. 

2 O'Callaghan's History, I: 154, 155. 



108 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

soldiers. Going there, I was invited by the English governor 
[John Hay nes] to dine; when sitting at the table, I told him 
that it was wrong to take by force the Company's land, 
which it had bought and paid for. He answered that the 
lands were lying idle; that though we had been there many 
years, we had done scarcely anything; that it was a sin to 
let such rich land, which produced such fine corn, lie uncul- 
tivated; and that they had already built three towns upon 
this river in a fine country." ' 

The next spring trouble began in earnest. On April 23rd, 
by the new style reckoning of the Dutch, they told Governor 
Hopkins of their intention to plough "a piece of land lying 
behind Fort Hope," and forbade the English to interfere. 
The usual dispute concerning Indian titles ensued. Hop- 
kins said "Show your right: we shall show ours." As a 
"bluff" that was about even, for in all probability the Dutch 
had no Indian deed, and the English no patent to show. 
The next day the Dutch began to plough the land in ques- 
tion, which had been distributed either to James Ensign or 
to Andrew Bacon, as these two lots were behind the fort. 2 
Thereupon the English constable — who was most likely 
Thomas Hosmer — living near, came with a dozen men 
armed with sticks. With blows and shouts, they frightened 
the horses so they ran away. An hour later the Dutch re- 
sumed their ploughing, without hindrance. That night, 
however, the English sowed corn in the field. Commissary 
Opdyck protested in writing to Governor Hopkins, and 
Governor Hopkins protested to Commissary Opdyck. Then 
both parties resorted to a truce. On May 30th, one of the 
Dutchmen's mares strayed upon an Englishman's land, to 
feast on his green grass. Governor Hopkins's servant 
impounded it, and Opdyck went to Manhattan with a 
complaint. Three weeks later, "The English carried off," 
according to Dutch authorities, "in the twinkle of an eye, 
a cow and calf, and drove them to their pound." The 
General Court, being then in session, promptly adjudicated 
the matter as a case of trespass, for the cow and calf had 
been in an Englishman's corn patch. The decree was that 

1 "Voyages of DeVrics," in N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., Ill: 86. 

2 Original Distribution, pp. 222, 223, 240. 



THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 109 

the Dutch could have their animals by paying, within three 
days, the damages and charges, and, if they did not the cow 
and calf would be sold. There was further excitement the 
next week, and the town had something to talk about. 
On June 28, 1640, as the Dutch story runs, "An English 
minister tooke [a load] of the hay which our masters ser- 
vants had cut and made upon theire owne bought and paied 
for and possessed lands; tooke it away and applyed it to 
his own use without giuing any recompense or satisfaction." 
Opdyck at once "served him with a protest, at the house of 
the Governor who was not at home." It may be that the 
clergyman got on the wrong land, as laymen have since in 
the undefined lots of the South Meadow. Or, perhaps, the 
load of hay was a donation from one of his parishioners. 
If we must express an opinion upon such a delicate matter 
between two ministers, it looks very much as if the offender 
was Samuel Stone, who owned eight acres along the road 
to the Indian Land, near the Dutchmen's bouwerie, perhaps 
then considered by them a part of it. There was further 
friction in harvest time, but at last they had winter and 
peace for a season. 

The conflict was renewed in the following year, by the 
vote of the North-side inhabitants, February 26th, to join 
doubtless with the South-side, to build a fence between the 
Dutchmen's land and the adjoining owners. 1 It is believed 
that this was the fence, a part of which, by Dutch testi- 
mony, the English began to build May 24th, driving posts 
in the ground around the fort, and with rails fencing it off 
in such a manner that the garrison could not use the wagon 
road to their wood and hay land. The Dutch at once tore 
it down. The most serious encounter had occurred on 
April 17th, when Peter Colet, Evert Duycking and Sybrant 
Sibols, who were ploughing a disputed field about the fort, 
were attacked by the English. They cut the trace ropes, 
drove off the horses, threw the plough into the river, and 
in the fracas knocked down and hurt one or more of the 
Dutchmen. It can be said on Dutch authority, that Gover- 
nor Hopkins had given warning to his violent countrymen, 
which may have had some effect after such an encounter. 

1 Hartford Toivn Votes, I: 43. 



110 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

At all events, it does not appear in Dutch testimony that, 
after the summer of 1641, they had any ill-treatment to 
complain of, except the English occupation of the lands they 
claimed and the impounding of their stray animals, wherein 
all inhabitants were treated alike. Such was the Dutch- 
men's presentation of their grievances. 1 

The English had a similar story. All their early complaints 
arose out of the disputed title to the lands in the South 
Meadow, which they had distributed among themselves. 
They had left for the Dutch a comparatively small tract. 
This was not fenced. Naturally, therefore, the Dutch ani- 
mals strayed on the lands the English were cultivating. 
To protect their crops, they sought to fence their lands, 
which their Dutch neighbors would not permit, especially 
as such fences surrounded much of their fort and cut off 
access to their bouwerie. If a certain receipt for twenty- 
eight shillings, dated June 3, 1641, which John Carrenton 
gave to John Talcott, "for cetting vp of the rayles betwene 
the town & the diuch grond," represents the whole or one- 
half of the cost of this experiment, the English did not get 
far with it. 2 At that juncture Governor Haynes wrote to 
the Massachusetts authorities for advice, and Winthrop's 
narrative states the situation. "Letters came," he says, 
"from the governour, etc., of Connecticut for advice about 
the difference between them and the Dutch. The Dutch 
governour had pressed them hard for his interest in all 
Hartford, etc., as far as one might see from their house, 
alleging he had purchased as much of the Pequods, and 
threatened force of arms. They of the river alleged their 
purchase of other Indians, the true owners of the place, 
etc., with other arguments from our patent and that of 
Saybrook. We returned answer without determining of 
either side, but advising to a moderate way, as the yielding 
of some more land to the Dutch house (for they had left 
them but 30 acres). But the Dutch would not be thus 
pacified, but prepared to send soldiers to be billeted at their 
house. But it pleased the Lord to disappoint their pur- 

1 Holland Documents, I: 543 ff.; II: HI ff.; Ply. Col. Rec.,X: 66-69; N.Y. 
Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., II: 276. 
* Hartford Town Votes, I: 8. 



THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 111 

pose, for the Indians falling out with them, killed four of 
their men at their fort Orange, whereof three were Eng- 
lish, who had gone to dwell among them, whereby they 
were forced to keep their soldiers at home to defend them- 
selves; and Mr. Peter going for England, and being well 
acquainted with the chief merchants in Holland, undertook 
to pacify the West India company, but for want of commis- 
sion from those of Hartford, the company there would not 
treat with him." 1 

These references are illuminating. The force of soldiers 
Director Kieft had prepared to send to Fort Hope, consisted 
of fifty men in two yachts, under the command of Johannes 
la Montagne. 2 Thus, possibly, the battle of Hartford nar- 
rowly missed taking place. Here, moreover, it appears as 
the English asserted, that the land claims of the Dutch were 
various and uncertain, covering sometimes all the river lands, 
and, at others, only the South Meadow. More than the 
latter tract, they had not bought from the Pequots, as their 
own record shows. And here is stated the position of the 
English, which was that they claimed under the Warwick 
Patent emanating from the Council for New England, as 
also by right of purchase from the original native tribe. They 
never abandoned this right of ownership, acquired, they 
asserted, "by purchase, patent and possession." So far 
as their colonial authorities could settle the matter, they 
were sustained after an examination by the Governor and 
Council of Massachusetts and by the Commissioners of the 
United Colonies. 3 

It is true that Rev. Hugh Peters, one of the delegation 
sent to England by Massachusetts in 1641, was asked to 
seek some adjustment of these differences in Holland. He 
was subsequently authorized by Governors Winthrop and 
Haynes to do so. Edward Hopkins also going that season 
to England, was empowered by the Connecticut General 
Court to arbitrate the matter. The Earl of Warwick, Lord 
Saye and Sele, and others in England, endeavored to assist 
them. Little, however, came of this peaceful attempt. Sir 
William Boswell, then ambassador at the Hague, suggested 

1 Winthrop's History, II: 38, 39. 2 Brodhead's History, I: 322. 

3 Winthrop's History, II: 155-157; Ply. Col. Rec, IX: 13, 175, 179, 182; X: 16. 



112 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

a plan of procedure, in a letter dated January 22, 1641-2, 
which was probably brought back by Edward Hopkins. 1 
Its concluding recommendation has furnished the text for 
much censure of the English. He advised "that in the mean 
tyme, th' English there doe not forbeare to put forward their 
plantacons, and crowd on, crowding the Dutch out of those 
places where they have [occupied] but without hostility or 
any act of violence." The fact is, however, that the crowding 
the English did, occurred before this letter was written; 
and the most hostile acts of the Dutch, after the English 
had abandoned violence and had attempted a peaceful 
settlement. In 1650, the four arbitrators, two of whom 
were chosen by each party, on examination of the English 
complaints, found that "most of the offences or grievances 
were things donn in the time and by the order and comaund 
of Monseir William Keift the former Gou r ," in which they 
were undoubtedly correct. 2 He was a man, as Dutch his- 
torians have stated, who "hankered for war." Provoked 
by repeated conflicts with the English elsewhere, and taking 
advantage possibly of their abandonment of violence at 
Hartford, he encouraged the Dutch garrison in hostile 
measures for several years, so that, in 1646, they had 
"growne to a strange & vnsufFerable boldnes." 3 They 
were charged with putting their cattle in English corn- 
fields, buying stolen goods and refusing to return them upon 
equal satisfaction, persuading servants to run away from 
their masters, releasing criminals and harboring fugitives 
from justice, resisting and assaulting the watch with arms, 
marrying some couples refused at the English plantations, 
and finally, with receiving at the House of Hope an Indian 
captive who had fled from her mistress, refusing to deliver 
her up to the magistrate and consenting to her abuse and 
defilement by a Dutch servant. 4 Of the last offence, the 
agent himself had given information. It was a public affront 
to the morality of a Puritan community that had long 
been tried by their manner of garrison life. It kindled a 

1 Conn. Col. Rec.,1: 565,566; Holland Documents, II; 150; Brodhead's History, 
I: 324. 

2 Ply.Col.RecX: 18. 

3 Ibid., IX: 64. * Ply. Col. Rec, IX: 61, 64, 76-79, 181; X: 16. 



THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 113 

blaze of indignation at the licentiousness that often made the 
Dutch trading post a curse. 1 

In 1650, these charges were reviewed at the meeting be- 
tween the Commissioners of the United Colonies, and 
Peter Stuyvesant, then Director General of New Nether- 
land; but William Kieft being then dead, they were referred 
to the authorities in Holland, or, in other words, buried 
with him. The decision of the arbitrators who made the 
award was, that the Dutch should retain all the lands they 
actually possessed at Hartford, and the remainder on both 
sides of the river should be and remain forever to the Eng- 
lish. 2 This was ratified by the States General in 1656. 
Thus the occupation of the disputed lands by colonists 
became the factor that determined the issue. Within a 
few years, the mother countries being at war and colonial 
relations strained, the House of Hope was deserted. Then 
came Captain John Underhill, acting under a commission 
to prosecute a predatory warfare against the Dutch, and 
on the 27th and 28th of June 1653, he took possession of 
the House of Hope and its lands. On the door of the block 
house, he placed this notice: "I, John Underhill, do seize 
this house and land for the State of England, by virtue of 
the commission granted by the Providence Plantation." 
He claimed afterwards to have done so with the permission 
of the General Court, then in session at Hartford. This 
was disallowed by the Court, April 6, 1654, when it seques- 
tered the property "in the behalf e of the Common wealth 
of England." 3 Three days later, peace was proclaimed 
between the two nations, and by the terms of the treaty, 
the English retained the property. 

At this time the Dutch possessions consisted of four 
tracts of land as follows: 1. Twenty-three and one-half 
acres in the South Meadow, being their meadow, garden 
and wood lot, and lying between the Great River on the 
north, and the "highway from ye meadow gate to the In- 

1 See Letter of Lord Saye and Sele, in Holland Documents, I: 129; "Hoeren 
Eyland," Map of 1666, in Winsor's Narr. and Crit. Hist., Ill: 333; and cf. Porter's 
Historical Notices, No. 2, p. 25. See also Bradford's History, p. 24; Wassenaar in 
Doc. Hist. ofN. Y., Ill: 33, 41; Doc. Rel. to Col. Hist. ofN.Y.,l: 290; III: 342, etc. 

2 Holland Documents, I: 611; Ply. Col. Rec, IX: 188-190. 

3 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 254, 275; N. E. Register, VI: 369. 



114 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

dian Land " on the south. 2. One acre in the South Meadow, 
which "abutteth on the landing place in Little River on 
the eaft," and William Gibbons [James Ensign] and Gregory 
Wolterton [Andrew Bacon] on the south, and the Little 
River on the north. 3. Three acres, "lying on ye poynt 
of ye little meadow," now Dutch Point. 4. Two acres, 
"being an Island Lyeing near ye eaft Side of ye great river 
over against ye Sowth end of ye little meadow." l Captain 
Underhill laid claim to all this land by virtue of his seizure. 
On May 17, 1655, he petitioned the General Court for per- 
mission to sell and convey it. His request was refused. 
Apparently the matter was adjusted, as he sold it, July 18th, 
to William Gibbons and Richard Lord, reserving the State's 
right. When a division was made, March 5, 1659-60, the 
Gibbons share was twelve and one-half acres of the west 
end of the bouwerie. The Lord share was Dutch Point, the 
Island and nine and one-half acres of the "bouwerie" east 
of the Gibbons lot. The State received the one-acre tract, 
and the remaining one and one-half acres of the bouwerie, 
both of which were sold, March 11, 1662-3, to John Gilbert. 2 
There is no doubt as to the location of the House of Hope. 
It was on the one-acre tract, beside the Little River and 
adjoining the landing-place, from which a lane twenty-four 
feet wide led to the "highway from ye meadow gate to the 
Indian Land." 3 This road ran alongside of the bouwerie, 
between which and the lane about eight acres had been 
granted to Andrew Bacon and George Steele. Across the 
stream, eastward of the fort, was the neck that connected 
the low land of Dutch Point with the Little Meadow, so 
that the House of Hope was not far in a direct line from the 
Connecticut River. The mouth of the stream provided a 
good harbor. DeVries describes this location in these 
words: "This redoubt stands upon a plain on the margin 
of the river, and alongside it runs a creek to a high wood- 
land." 4 The map of the Great River in 1666, while its 

1 State Archives: Tovms and Lands, I: 76-91; Original Distribution, pp. 131, 
304, 500. 

2 Original Distribution, p. 533. 

3 See Albert L. Washburn's "Map of the Dutch Land," in The Hartford Times, 
February 24, 1905, and Goodwin's Map of 1824. 

* "Voyages of DeVries" in N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., Ill: 86. 



THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE 115 

testimony may not have great weight in such a matter, 
places the "Huys de Hoop" on the south side of the stream, 
and not upon the Connecticut River. Moreover, this loca- 
tion alone meets the conditions of the Dutch authorities, 
who place the fort near the bouwerie, and yet where the 
fence erected by the English cut it off from that tract. 

The House of Hope was a fortified redoubt. Such struc- 
tures among the Dutch were usually built of logs, with 
stones or brick at the angles. Within there was a two-story 
block house, of commodious proportions, having a large 
Dutch fire-place at one end. About the house was an open 
court, with a hard earthen floor. At Fort Orange the build- 
ing was twenty-six feet and nine inches long. Underneath 
there was a cellar. The first floor was divided by a partition. 
On the second, which was reached by a ladder, there was a 
court or storage room. Probably the House of Hope had 
an enclosed yard, with sheds for their horses and cattle, 
on the southeast side at the landing-place. In 1639, DeVries 
found "forty to fifty cherry trees" about it. Of their fruit 
he feasted the English governor, minister and chief men 
with their wives at the fort, when he sought their favor in 
securing a pardon for the minister's servant. The offender 
had become drunk aboard a ketch in the river, and nar- 
rowly escaped a flogging at the whipping-post. 

The ruins of this historic station of Dutch soldiers and 
traders survived for many a day. A burying-ground near 
it was discovered by chance in 1852. It is thought to have 
been the resting place of some of the inmates, who died 
during those early years. In 1819, when Dr. Abiel Holmes 
visited the place, he found there only some decayed timbers 
and a few Dutch bricks, one of which is preserved among 
the exhibits of the Connecticut Historical Society. In 
time these bricks became scattered, and the finding of them 
elsewhere has misled some, as to the fort's location. Wil- 
liam Imlay, it is said, at last removed the mound of earth 
and debris to fill a swale, on the north side of the stream. A 
portion of this historic acre has passed peacefully into the 
possession of the City of Hartford, where its people might 
fittingly place a memorial to the buried hopes of their old 
neighbors. 



CHAPTER VIII 
PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD 

The people of Connecticut have many good reasons to 
praise the worldly wisdom of their forefathers. They were 
men of human ambitions, and hence deeply interested in 
getting on in the world. It does not detract from a high 
estimate of their moral virtues and religious character if 
we admit that they were sagacious, enterprising and far- 
seeing men, who sought, and promptly accepted, a good 
chance in the line of colonization. Like all emigrants to 
New England, they wished to settle where they would soon 
see the reward of their labors, and leave to their children a 
goodly heritage. Among such a people, the quality and 
extent of their lands were important. Thomas Hooker 
himself was frank to say, in 1634, that his flock wanted more 
and better land. Their attention had been turned toward 
the raising of cattle. This was then considered a promising 
venture, especially where there were large river meadows. 
Our records furnish many indications that this pastoral 
purpose directed the agricultural labors of the river planta- 
tions for some years. They all had extensive hay and pas- 
ture lands. Thus a considerable portion of the territory now 
occupied by the city of Hartford was used in early years 
for grazing and kindred purposes. 

The original "writeing" in which Sequassen and his tribe 
conveyed the Suckiaug lands to Samuel Stone and Wil- 
liam Goodwin in 1636, specified "all the land from Wethers- 
field bounds on the south, to Windsor bounds on the north, 
and the whole bredth from Connecticutt river on the east 
six large miles into the wilderness on the west." Our only 
authority for this statement is the confirmatory deed of 
1670. 1 The grantees of the lost conveyance were, probably, 
the abovenamed and their associates, the " inhabitants " 

1 Hartford Land Records, I: 5, 6; Porter's Historical Notices, No. I, pp. 4-7. 



PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD 117 

of the plantation. This grant "was afterwards upon further 
consideration renewed and enlarged" by Sequassen, at the 
desire of Mr. Haynes and the other magistrates. It then 
conveyed to them Sequassen's land as far westward "as 
his country went." As this occurred "severall yeares" 
before 1640, it may have been a factor in the readjustment 
of the relations between the English and the Indians fol- 
lowing the Pequot War. If so, it doubtless provided that 
Sequassen's people should occupy a part of the South 
Meadow lands. This document, also, had disappeared 
before 1670. The confirmatory deed refers to the "full 
mention" of this grant in the conveyance of Pethus, sachem 
of the Tunxis Indians, to the English about 1640. The 
latter deed was of Farmington lands. It reserved a tract 
for the natives. On July 5, 1670, the surviving Suckiaug 
Indians confirmed these earlier grants. In this document 
the terms of that time are used. The purchase of Stone and 
Goodwin is referred to as having been made "in the behalfe 
of the present proprietors." This was true, though these 
proprietors were, in 1636, the legal plantation inhabitants. 
The gantees of 1670 were "Mr. Samuel Wyllys, Capt. 
John Talcott, Mr. John Allyn and Mr. James Richards, in 
behalfe of the rest of the proprietors of the land belonging 
to the township of Hartford, their heires and assignes 
forever." Such was the title and extent of their lands on 
the west side of the river. The western boundary in this 
general description was six miles from the river, as measured 
along the northern and southern lines. It was about five 
miles from it at Hartford. When Farmington was incor- 
porated in 1645, the latter distance was given, perhaps for 
this reason. This territory included the present town of 
West Hartford, except that portion west of the old moun- 
tain road at Foote's Corners. This was added from Farming- 
ton in several tracts, after having been included many years 
in the West Division Society. The northern and southern 
boundary lines were periodically matters of controversy 
for many years, but the alterations were unimportant except 
to adjoining landowners. 

On the east side of the Connecticut River the Podunk 
and Hockanum Indians were the native owners of the land. 



118 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

The English at once saw the advantages of possessing it. 
The Windsor Plantation bought a tract opposite its territory 
in 1636. 1 At an early date Wethersfield did the same. The 
purchase of the latter plantation extended eastward from 
the river three miles. 2 On February 21, 1636-7, the General 
Court fixed the east side boundaries between those planta- 
tions and Hartford. It seems probable therefore that some- 
time in 1636, the inhabitants of Hartford's plantations made 
a purchase from the native owners. Possibly this was de- 
layed in completion, or a purchase was first made of the east 
side meadows, and afterwards the upland was secured. The 
former tract was one of the early divisions of the plantation. 
The bargain was certainly completed and the upland was 
secured before or in 1640. 3 This conveyance also is lost, 
but references to the purchase are found in the records. The 
lands east of these "Three-mile Lots" had not been bought 
from the natives in 1672. Then the General Assembly, 
exercising jurisdiction under the charter, extended the bounds 
of Hartford eastward five miles. This tract was claimed by 
Joshua, sachem of the Niantic Indians, who died in 1676. 
A short time before his death he sold it to Major John 
Talcott, but no deed was executed. Upon the town's 
agreement to pay the stipulated sum to Joshua's executors, 
they deeded this tract, May 13, 1682, to Cyprian Nichols, 
Caleb Stanley and John Marsh, selectmen of Hartford. 4 
Thus the original town came to include the territory between 
Bolton on the east, and Farmington on the west, now divided 
into Manchester, East Hartford, Hartford and West Hart- 
ford. East Hartford was incorporated as a separate town 
in 1783. From it, Manchester was set off and incorporated 
in 1823. West Hartford was created a separate ecclesiastical 
society in 1711, and incorporated as a town in 1854. 

It is essential to an understanding of the early history of 
Hartford, that a careful study be made of the formation of 
its body of proprietors. The usual practice, in the settle- 
ment of new regions, was for a number of associated indi- 
viduals to buy a large tract of land, and divide it among 

1 Stiles's Hist, of Windsor, I: 127, 128. 2 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 7. 

3 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 21, 22. 

< Hartford Town Voles, I: 196, 205; Hartford Land Records, 1: 6, 7. 



PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD 119 

themselves on the basis of the amount each had contributed 
to the purchase money, or the initial expenses of the enter- 
prise. Such persons were termed "proprietors." It has 
always been assumed that this was the case in the settlement 
of the river plantations, but the conclusion has never been 
consistent with extant records. The inference is natural 
that proprietorship is based upon sharing the cost of the 
coats, hatchets, hoes and knives, which the English usually 
paid the natives for their lands. It has also been thought 
that proprietorship implies a participation in the original 
establishment of a plantation. Some have attributed to it 
a prominence among the founders of the river settlements 
that was denied to others, who seem to have been of equal 
or superior worth. These inferences are sometimes justified. 
In their application to Hartford, however, and, so far as we 
know, to its associated plantations, they have resulted in 
error and confusion, both among historians and genealogists. 
The claim here made may be summarized in the statement 
that the establishment of Connecticut's colonial govern- 
ment involved such a transition from plantation to town 
estate, that it was necessary to revise the list of legal inhab- 
itants, who had hitherto been, in fact, the original proprie- 
tors, and this was accomplished by the formation of the body 
of proprietors of 1639. 

The common statement that has been made concerning 
many an honored ancestor in Hartford, is that he was "an 
original proprietor in 1639." What does that mean? Not 
necessarily that a man shared directly in the purchase of 
the town's lands from the Indians. It does not affirm 
that he was surely among the first settlers of the plantation. 
There is documentary evidence that some of the proprietors 
were not. Nor does it prove that his social standing was 
superior to that of some who received grants of land by 
the town's courtesy. It means that in 1639, when, for rea- 
sons herein stated, the body of proprietors was constituted 
to determine who had a right to share in undivided lands, 
the man named was found to have been a legal inhabitant, 
and to have borne, by taxation upon his lands or estate for 
a greater or less period, a share in the plantation's financial 
burdens. He had thus become, in business terms, a stock- 



120 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

holder in the plantation and was entitled to a stock dividend 
of land. The legal inhabitant, as already stated, was the 
unit of the franchise. He was also the unit in early distri- 
butions of land. As the first conveyances from the Indians, 
where known, were to the "inhabitants" as grantees, or 
to their body called the "plantation," so the lands acquired 
were divided among such inhabitants. We do not read of 
any proprietors in name, because these legal inhabitants 
were the owners and grantors. Others than these received 
grants of land in Hartford, both before and after the forma- 
tion of the body of proprietors. Such settlers, however, 
either because they had not been inhabitants for some reason, 
or because they had arrived too recently to participate in 
the plantations' burdens, did not secure the standing of 
proprietors. Hence they had by right no share in the un- 
divided lands when the time arrived for their distribution. 
The grants such settlers received were by "the town's 
courtesy." The other river plantations made the same dis- 
tinction. Such was the practice elsewhere. In 1664, when 
there were common lands to be distributed in Cambridge, 
two lists were ordered to be made, one of those who had a 
"just right," and another of those whose claim was "in a 
way of free gift." 

Leaving for another chapter the consideration of their 
order of plantation divisions, the result of its application 
was that the proportions of the inhabitants varied greatly. 
Upon these lands, rates were assessed to defray all their 
charges. The cost of the land purchased froni the Indians 
was comparatively a small matter. One planter might 
advance the sum, to be repaid later by the inhabitants. 
William Pynchon bought such land at Springfield, and was 
reimbursed by a rate assessed upon the lots granted to the 
settlers. There were other and larger initial expenses. In 
the river settlements their remoteness made these consider- 
able. For their circumstances, the annual plantation and 
colony rates were high. On February 9, 1637-8, the General 
Court was forced to provide for the payment of a debt. 
It was for £620, the "charges of the late designes of warr." 
Of this amount £251 2s. were apportioned to Hartford, 
to be raised by a rate probably assessed upon the acreage 



PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD 121 

of each. 1 Collectors were appointed in all the plantations. 
Thus by their payment of successive rates, the inhabitants 
were making investments in a corporation that had con- 
siderable tracts of undivided land. At any particular time 
the taxes each had paid during the period of his residence 
would be the amount of his investment, and hence his 
rightful share in the divisions. 

All grants of land in the plantation divisions of Hartford 
were conditional. This was an important factor in their 
scheme of development. The first order, recorded by Wil- 
liam Spencer under the date 1635, provided that if a settler 
had a lot granted to him and removed within four years, 
the lot should return to the town, the former owner receiv- 
ing the worth of his labor upon it. If any person desired 
to sell his lot or lots within that time, he was first to offer 
them to the town for the valuation of his improvements; 
or, upon the town's approval, to sell at such a valuation to 
another. House-lots that were not built upon within a year 
were forfeited to the town. Nor were such rules restricting 
early sales peculiar to Hartford. They were made in Cam- 
bridge, Springfield and other settlements. There is no doubt 
that these rules were enforced. Some lots did return to 
the town. The time of other grantees was extended. 2 The 
town made offers to pay for improvements on some lots, 
and purchasers of others were approved. 3 Probably the 
lost plantation records contained evidence of such action. 
On January 14, 1639-40, the townsmen were ordered to 
examine all former bargains of land made by the inhab- 
itants, and confirm or disannul the same. Planters as 
prominent as William Gibbons and Nathaniel Ward were 
fined for buying land in violation of the order, though their 
purchases were confirmed. 4 Indeed, as hereafter shown, 
the land records prove that sales were comparatively few 
before the expiration of the four years, and immediately 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 12. After King Philip's war, the Colony rate was increased 
from one penny on the pound to eighteen pence. The Court then appointed a 
committee to "size" each class of lands. The valuation in Hartford was: Home 
lots at 40 s. per acre; improved uplands 25 s. per acre on the south side, 20 s. per 
acre on the north side; meadow, one half at 50 s., the other half at 40 s. per acre. — 
Conn. Col. Rec, II: 237, 292. 

2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 13, 29, 30. 

3 Ibid., I: 15, 36, 42. 4 Ibid., I: 15. 



122 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

after the restriction was removed, they became numerous. 
It is obvious, therefore, that more land than a settler could 
improve or use was a burden to him. Such tracts were 
unsalable property. The owner was compelled to pay taxes 
upon them, but they yielded no income. Planters of large 
means could afford to take such land, and hold it until it 
could be sold. Others were satisfied to have them do so, 
for thus the rich paid the burden of the taxes. By this plan, 
all speculation in lands was for the time excluded. The 
settler's chance of reward depended upon his enterprise 
and labor. Apparent inequalities were thus righted. Hence 
in all their plantation divisions of land, the inhabitants 
were, in a sense, distributing only opportunities for improve- 
ment according to each man's ability. The poor man who 
employed his talent was rewarded. Those settlers of the 
wealthier class, who invested their fortunes in the planta- 
tion during a period of Indian warfare, received that return 
which their loyalty merited. 

If now these legal inhabitants of the plantation, as the 
stockholders in a corporation, upon entering into a new 
estate as an organized town in which new arrivals were to 
participate, were forced to provide for future divisions of 
their assets, they could only do so equitably by ascertaining 
the amount of each man's investment. This was not a diffi- 
cult problem, and the result would most naturally be ex- 
pressed in the number of acres to be allotted to each pro- 
prietor in every division. This was commonly called a 
"rule of division." The early settler, who had paid rates 
from the beginning, would thus have a larger share in the 
land. This was justly due him. Another settler who had 
come later might have the same share, because he had paid 
a larger tax during his residence. A place would be given 
to every inhabitant, whatever his estate, who had a pro- 
priety right in the plantation. This explains the fact that 
we find among the proprietors of Hartford, and other original 
plantations, the names of arrivals in every year from 1635 to 
1638. We have now to test this explanation of a long- 
standing mystery by the records. 

The reader is reminded that the inhabitants of the planta- 
tions had in their Constitution, adopted January 14, 1638-9, 



PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD 123 

made over to the General Court the right to "dispose of 
lands vndisposed of." This was not a meaningless phrase. 
Grants were afterwards made by the Court to various 
persons, to whom titles can now be traced. On October 
10, 1639, authority was given by the Court "to dispose of 
their owne lands vndisposed of." That act was certainly 
received by the inhabitants of Hartford as their warrant for 
subsequent divisions. In 1721, when a dispute arose con- 
cerning the ownership of land at Podunk, the town expressly 
appealed to the settlement of bounds there in 1636, and 
to this act of 1639, as the authority the inhabitants had for 
dividing the Three-mile Lots east of the Connecticut River. 
This was the tract east of the meadow lots. It is stated 
that it was divided "about the year 1640 ... to and 
amongst the then Inhabitants" of the town. 1 The case in 
question seemed to threaten "dangerous consequences, to 
the weakening and destroying of all the titles of the pro- 
prietors" of the town and other towns in the Colony. This 
was one occasion for an act confirming titles in 1723. 2 

The months of the winter following the Court's action of 
1639, were partly devoted in Hartford, and probably in 
other river towns, to the settlement of this issue of owner- 
ship. This was necessary in clearing the way for con- 
templated divisions of land. On January 7, 1639-40, all 
distributions by the inhabitants of the North-side or South- 
side plantations were made thereafter void. Obviously 
their former method of plantation divisions was to be sup- 
planted by another, arising out of the whole body of legal 
inhabitants. They had always acted on the basis of an in- 
habitant's right of ownership. Such rights could not be 
set aside, giving to every new resident thereafter a share in 
the inhabitants' property. The Court did not intend any 
such action. Hence the question necessarily proposed for 
the town's consideration was this: Who are the inhabitants 
that have secured a right in undivided lands, and in what 
proportion shall they share? 

At the annual town meeting, December 23, 1639, William 
Spencer, William Westwood, John Moody and Nathaniel 

1 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 21, 22. 

2 Conn. Col. Rec, VI: 394-397. 



124 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Ward were chosen townsmen. This meeting probably 
adjourned to the 26th, when a vote was passed as follows: 
"Mr [Edward] Hopkins m r [Thomas] wells m r [John] Steele 
and m r [John] Taylcot are desired to asist vs in exsameing 
the devsions one either side the River & to rectify the same 
also to see whoe are Inhabetants to haue proporcons in all 
devesions & whoe not also to Inquier w* ordrs stand in forse 
v^ h are of genrall Concernm* w^ are not recorded." * As 
this record was made in William Spencer's handwriting, and 
he was one of the townsmen, the intent of the vote was to 
add the above inhabitants, two from each side, to the four 
townsmen, thus constituting a committee of eight to ascer- 
tain who were the proprietors of Hartford. The examina- 
tion of the divisions and accounts of each plantation, 
probably recorded in the North-side and South-side books, 
would have disclosed the names of those who had received 
proportions as inhabitants, and the amount they had paid 
in rates. These would have been the proprietors. More- 
over, they would thus gather the names of those whose 
grants had been made by free gift. Apparently the com- 
mittee reported at a meeting of the town, January 3, 1639- 
40, and their report was adopted as "the rule for division of 
lands." 2 The share of each was designated by a certain 
number of acres. With their honorary titles and usual 
spelling of names, these lists are as follows: 

"The Names of such Inhabitants as haue Right in un- 
divided Lands. 

John Haynes, Esq., 160; George Wyllys, Esq., 150; 
Mr. Edward Hopkins, 120; Mr. Mathew* Allyn, 110; Mr. 
Thomas Welles, 100; Mr. John Webster, 96; Mr. William 
Whiting, 96; John Talcott, 90; Andrew Warner, 84; Mr. 
Thomas Hooker, 80; William Pantry, 80; William West- 
wood, 80; James Olmsted, 70; Thomas Hosmer, 60; Na- 
thaniel Ward, 60; William Wadsworth, 52; John White, 
50; John Steele, 48; Thomas Scott, 42; Mr. William 
Goodwin, 42; Thomas Stanley, 42; Mr. Samuel Stone, 40; 
Stephen Hart, 40; William Spencer, 40; John Moody, 40; 
William Lewis, 38; William Ruscoe, 32; Timothy Stanley, 
32; Jonathan Ince, 30; Richard Webb, 30; William An- 

1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 10. 2 Ibid., I: 21-24. 



PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD 125 

drews, 30; Samuel Wakeman, 30; Jeremy Adams, 30; 
Richard Lyman, 30; William Butler, 28; Thomas Lord, 
28; Mathew Marvin, 28; Gregory Wolterton, 28; Andrew 
Bacon, 28; Richard Goodman, 26; Nathaniel Richards, 
26; John Pratt, 26; Thomas Birch wood, 26; George Steele, 
26; John Barnard, 24; James Ensign, 24; John Hopkins, 
24; Stephen Post, 24; Edward Stebbins, 24; George 
Grave, 24; John Clarke, 22; William Gibbons, 20; John 
Crow, 20; Thomas Judd, 20; William Hills, 20; George 
Stocking, 20; Joseph Mygatt, 20; Nathaniel Ely, 18; 
Richard Lord, 18; William, Hyde, 18; William Kelsey, 
16; John Arnold, 16; William Blumfield, 16; Richard 
Butler, 16; Arthur Smith, 14; Robert Day, 14; John 
Maynard, 14; Seth Grant, 14; William Hayden, 14; 
Thomas Spencer, 14; Thomas Stanton, 14; John Baysey, 
14; John Wilcox, 13; John Marsh, 12; William Parker, 
12; Nicholas Clarke, 12; Thomas Bull, 12; John Higginson, 
12; William Holton, 12; Edward Elmer, 12; Francis 
Andrews, 12; Richard Church, 12; James Cole, 10; Zachary 
Field, 10; John Skinner, 10; Joseph Easton, 10; Thomas 
Hale, 10; Richard Olmsted, 10; Samuel Hale, 8; Richard 
Risley, 8; Thomas Olcott, 8; Robert Bartlett, 8; Thomas 
Selden, 6; Thomas Root, 6; William Pratt, 6. — Total, 95. 

The Names of such Inhabitants as were Granted Lots 
to have only at the towns courtesy, with liberty to fetch 
wood and keep swine or cows by proportion on the common. 

Thomas Woodford, 6; Ralph Keeler, 6; Thomas Lord, 
Jun., 6; Thomas Barnes, 6; John Purchas, 6; William 
Phillips, 6; Nicholas Desborough, 6; Benjamin Burr, 6; 
Ozias Goodwin, 6; Daniel Garret, 6; John Hall, 6; John 
Morris, 6; Nathaniel Bearding, 6; John Sable, 6; Richard 
Watts, 6; William Westley, 6; John Holloway, 5; John 
Bidwell, 4; Nathaniel Kellogg, 4; Robert Wade, 4; Henry 
Wakeley, 4; Thomas Upson, 4; Widow Mary Betts, 4; John 
Bronson, 3; John Olmsted, 3; John Pierce, 3. — Total, 26." 

The committee of eight were also authorized to rectify 
any errors or inequalities in previous divisions. Whether 
or not they did so is uncertain. There was evidently some 
dissatisfaction as to the proportions. Our interpretation of 
the records is that some were found to have more and others 



126 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

less land than their investment warranted. Perhaps this 
is the meaning of a vote, not fully deciphered, that was 
apparently passed January 3, 1639-40, when the committee 
reported. At all events, on January 14th, the following 
action was taken: "Whearas their is some differents in 
m[ens] Alotments some haveing moor then is according to 
their due proporcon Itis therefore] orderd That m r Hopkins 
m r Wells [m r ] Webster m r Steele m r Taylcot [Andrew] 
Warner John Prat Tymothy [Sta]ndly John Clarke Joseph 
Mygate w th the [towns] men shall Exsamen the same and 
s[hall] haue power to Appoint Euery man [his] proporcon 
according as in ther Judgfment] shalbe Just and Equall And 
A[ppoint] the places wheer such ffurther [divisions?] of land 
shallbee layde fforth as [also] Appoint w '* 1 off the Inhabetants 
[shall have] Equall Right to all vndevided land w * 1 are 
onely to take soe much as [they] shall in[rprove?] [faithf?] 
ully and. . . ." l Presumably this committee of fourteen, 
having full power, reviewed the former lists. It is believed 
that they first considered the matter of propriety rights and 
the claims of those who had been put in the town's courtesy 
list. Their report is thought to be the lists that are found 
in the records without proportions. 2 The names of the 
ninety-five proprietors are the same, though arranged in 
another order. Fifteen names were added, however, to the 
earlier town's courtesy list. These, with their subsequent 
proportions, are as follows: 

John Warner, 6; William Cornwall, 8; Richard Seymour, 
6; Benjamin Munn, 8; John Gennings, 6; Paul Peck, 8; 
George Hubbard, 6; Thomas Bliss, 6; Thomas Bliss, Jun., 
4; Edward Lay, 6; Thomas Gridley, 6; Giles Smith, 8; 
Thomas Richards, 8; Thomas Bunce, 13; William Watts, 
4. — Total, 15. 

This committee apparently decided not to alter the pro- 
portions already adopted, but to adjust any inequalities, in 
the distribution of East-side upland lots then in contempla- 
tion. This division was ordered January 11, 1640-41. On 
February 18th, it was decided to run a line east and west 
through this tract, distributing the land north of it to 
North-side men, and that south of it to South-side men, 

1 Ibid., I: 14. 2 Ibid., I: 16-20. 



PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD 127 

excepting a few of the latter, who were to share with the 
former. North of the line, the grantees were to have one 
hundred and five acres for one hundred, and south of it, 
one hundred for one hundred. The same ten inhabitants, 
with the townsmen, were then authorized to prepare the 
lists and determine the proportions for this division. 1 We 
have these reasons, therefore, for assigning to this com- 
mittee the third set of names recorded in the town votes, 
according to which proportions the East-side division of 
1666 was actually made. 2 In this list, the names are ar- 
ranged as North-side and South-side residents. Some 
proportions are greater than those in the rule of division, 
and others are less. These proportions were used only in 
the East-side upland division. The proprietors were the 
same as in the earlier list, excepting that John Cullick had 
acquired the right of Jonathan Ince, and a lot was sequestered 
to that of Clement Chaplin. Since the former list, however, 
seven others had secured a place in the town's courtesy list. 
Their names and proportions are as follows: 

James Wakeley, 4; Samuel Gardner, 4; Thomas Black- 
ley, 4; James Bridgman, 8; John Latimer, 4; Thomas 
Porter, 4; Richard Billings, 6. 

Thus the town perpetuated the acquired rights of the 
plantation inhabitants in the body of proprietors. If we 
interpret the records correctly, John Cullick secured by the 
payment of accumulated taxes the propriety of Jonathan 
Ince, who did not settle permanently in Hartford. It was 
given to him July 28, 1640, upon the same condition other 
lands were given, he "To paye all y e Charges y l is exspeded 
vpon it y e land: a Just account now given." 3 John Crow, 
who received Bartholomew Greene's propriety at an early 
date, doubtless made the same payments. He assumed a 
proprietor's responsibilities and secured his privileges. 
Apparently the taxes had been charges made against a 
propriety. They must have been proportionate to an in- 
habitant's interest in lands or estate. A careful study of 
the land records shows that there was a general correspond- 
ence between the proportions in their rule of division in 

1 Ibid., I: 39, 42, 46. 2 Ibid., I: 49-55; Original Distribution, pp. 492-494. 
3 Hartford Town Votes, I: 33, 34. 



128 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

1639, and the earlier grants that were made by the planta- 
tions. We see, moreover, in the later application of this 
rule, when they assessed a rate upon each man's propriety, 
to raise funds for the purchase or division of lands, the 
continuance of the same principle. 

As already stated, the early Indian deeds of the West-side 
lands having disappeared, the ancient proprietors of Hart- 
ford secured a confirmation of this purchase in 1670. They 
then paid the surviving natives "near the value the land 
was esteemed at before the English came." At a propri- 
etors' meeting, February 9, 1671-2, it was agreed to make a 
rate of ten pounds upon the proprietors of January 3, 1639, 
to pay for this purchase, the amount to be raised "upon 
every man according to his propriety." It was therefore 
their ancient rule that determined the proprietors' propor- 
tions in paying for this land in 1670, as stated in the records. 1 
They voted in 1672 to divide a mile and one-half along the 
town's western bound. The remainder of this tract was 
to be a " common " forever. The above lots were laid out in 
November 1674. A committee of the proprietors was 
appointed in 1677 to distribute the overplus south of the 
Farmington road among such as had need of the land. 

The same principle was applied in the division of the 
Five-mile tract east of the Connecticut River. This was 
distributed, however, among another class of owners. As 
already stated, it had been purchased from Joshua's execu- 
tors in 1682, by the "inhabitants." This term had assumed 
its modern meaning under their town government. The 
money to pay for this tract was raised by a rate assessed 
upon the town's grand list of that year. The grantees were 
not the ancient proprietors, but the selectmen of the town. 
Hence it was divided among the "Inhabitants of the Town" 
according to what each had paid for the purchase, and the 
rate of 1682 was recorded as a rule of division. Three miles 
and one hundred rods next to Bolton, were distributed in 
1731. The remainder was held in common until its division 
in 1753. 2 

1 Original Distribution, pp. 549-552. 

2 Hartford Toicn Voles, I: 201, 202, 205,252, 284, 309, 310; MS. Vol. II: 360 ff.; 
Hartford Land Records, I, first pages; V, last pages; VII: 476 ff.; Mem. Hist, 
of Hartford County, II: 244-246. 



PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD 129 

Such was the standing of the ancient proprietors and the 
proprietors — inhabitants, who made the year 1754 mem- 
orable in Hartford by a famous contest over their rights in 
the division of the West-side town common. 1 The former 
body was composed of the heirs and assigns of the original 
proprietors in 1639; the latter embraced the inhabitants, 
who held the powers and shared the responsibilities of town 
government in 1682-1685. One made a distribution accord- 
ing to the rule of division adopted in 1639, already used in 
1671-1674; the other followed the rule established for the 
division of the Five-mile tract. The influential majority 
had allotments in either case. Shares varied, however, 
according as one owned a propriety or participated as a 
taxpayer. Some in each class were excluded by the rule 
of the other. Self-interest probably decided their party 
allegiance. The fundamental question was one of owner- 
ship. Their legal contest involved the interpretation of 
the town's patent. In the time of Sir Edmund Andros, 
the General Court, fearing that their rights were in danger, 
had required each town to take out a patent from the 
Governor and Company, the grantees under the Charter, 
and had divided among them the western lands. 2 Such a 
patent of the land within the town's bounds, was issued 
May 26, 1685, to Major John Talcott, Samuel Wyllys, Esq., 
Captain John Allyn, Mr. Richard Lord, Mr. John Haynes, 
Mr. Thomas Richards, Mr. Cyprian Nichols, Lieut. Joseph 
Wadsworth, Ensign Nathaniel Stanley, Mr. Stephen Hos- 
mer, and the rest of the proprietors of the town, "sayd 
parcell of land hauing been by purchafs or otherwise Law- 
fully obteyned of the Indian Natiue proprietors." 3 Each 
party considered itself the grantees under this patent. The 
act of 1723 concerning titles, was supposed to confirm their 
rights. 4 In 1753, these bodies began their divisions of the 

Collections of Conn. Hist. Soc. — "Proprietors' Title to Lands," No. 283; 
and "Proprietors' Papers," No. 284; County Court Records, Vol. T, No. 209; 
Superior Court Records, Vol. XII (1754, 1755); State Archives: Division of Common, 
Hartford: Proprietors' Votes, 1754-1786, City Clerk's Office; "Hartford Proprietors" 
in Boardman Collection, State Library. 

2 Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 76-78; Andrews's The River Towns, pp. 40, 
41. 

8 Conn. Col. Rec., HI: 177,288; Colony Record of Deeds, III: 148,149. 

* Conn. Col. Rec, VI: 394-397. 



130 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

common. Subsequent meetings increased the heat of their 
controversy. Then the matter was taken to the County 
Court, in the case of Samuel Flagg vs. John Ledyard and 
William Hooker for the possession of a twenty-acre lot, 
located on the "First Hill," south of Wadsworth's tavern. 
The plaintiff represented the claims of the ancient pro- 
prietors, having acquired the right of William Westwood. 
At the trial, in April 1754, he was defeated, but appealed to 
the Superior Court. There again, the verdict was first 
sustained. A review was granted, and, in June 1755, the 
matter received extended consideration. It was such a 
marshalling of historical evidence as had never before been 
known, and probably never since. They cited the purchase 
of 1636, and its confirmation in 1670; the act of the General 
Court October 10, 1639, authorizing town organization and 
the distribution of undivided lands; the list of ancient 
proprietors of 1639; their rule of division as used in 1671; 
the sequestration of the town common for the perpetual use 
of the inhabitants; the grant, purchase and division of the 
Five-mile tract; the town's patent in 1685, and their grants 
made in town meetings, confirmed by the act of 1723, when 
the proprietors' rights in the remaining undivided lands 
were recognized. The jury found that, if the law was such 
that the purchasers of the said land were vested with the 
fee thereof, as an estate of inheritance descendible to their 
heirs and assigns, the verdict should be for the ancient 
proprietors. The court decided that such was the law, and 
execution was granted, June 18, 1755, to recover the land 
with twenty shillings damages and costs of court. Other 
actions involving this question of ownership, met the same 
fate as this test case. The parties soon agreed to suspend 
further controversy, and it is said that the ancient proprie- 
tors' rights were purchased by the inhabitants, whose allot- 
ments prevailed. Thus after an exciting legal contest, when 
the shades of the forefathers walked abroad in our courts 
and legislative halls, and the facts of our early history were 
marshalled in grand review, the victorious heirs and assigns 
of the proprietors of 1639, with becoming dignity, made 
their bow to posterity and passed out of sight. 



CHAPTER IX 
PLANTATION DIVISIONS 

The loss occasioned by the disappearance of the North-side 
and South-side plantation books, can be repaired in part 
by the study of the land records. We cannot recover their 
early votes, the time when some settlers received their 
house-lots, the dates of various divisions, the special reasons 
for some grants and certain orders that would have solved 
perplexities in the town's history. There is no question, 
however, that the value of the lost books was depreciated 
in the town's estimation, by the fact that their essential 
data had been transferred to the town votes and land 
records. This led, indirectly, to their disappearance. The 
missing books are supposed to have contained some record 
of their plantation divisions. When the General Court, 
in 1639, required the register of each town to "record every 
man's house and land already graunted and measured out 
to him," both in the town's book and with the Secretary of 
the Colony, it virtually ordered each inhabitant to make a 
return of his plantation allotments. These records are, 
therefore, a summary of earlier divisions. Unfortunately, 
some inhabitants delayed their returns. Meanwhile they 
had bought, sold or exchanged lots; and the ownership of 
abutting lots had changed. So the names of original 
grantees, or earlier owners, have in some instances been 
lost. The plotting of some tracts has been made difficult, 
if not impossible. Still the town's book of original distribu- 
tion enables one, on the whole, to follow with reasonable 
confidence the development of Hartford during the four 
years of its plantation estate. In doing so, it may be 
definitely stated that the same general rules as to propor- 
tions that prevailed in Springfield and elsewhere were 
adopted. To each inhabitant, and to some who were not, 
there were given a house-lot and such a proportion of 



132 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

meadow, pasture and woodland as was mete for his circum- 
stances. One's estate, social standing, occupation, family, 
public service, convenience, and ability to improve the 
land, were considered. As elsewhere, a larger proportion 
of planting-ground was given to those who were agricul- 
turalists. In distributing meadow and pasture, they re- 
garded those who were engaged in raising cattle and had 
the means for that venture. 1 As a rule, those who worked 
at their trades had less land. The principle that governed 
them in their plantation divisons was to supply the needs 
of all, in such manner as would further the settlement's 
development. 

There is no doubt that the entries in the Original Distri- 
bution, under the caption "Febr: Anno dom: 1639," made 
by the first and second recorders — unknown by name, but 
acting under John Steele, the official register — comprise 
the returns made promptly in compliance with the Court's 
order. 2 These lots, with a few exceptions, were original 
grants. A lot secured by purchase or exchange is some- 
times found among them. The reason for some of these 
exceptions is known, as in the early sale of Soldiers' Field 
lots. Presumably such transactions had usually the con- 
sent of the inhabitants, as they were contrary to the 
established rule. On February 18, 1640-41, this vote 
was passed: "Its ordered y l euery man y* hath beene an 
Inhabitant foure years shall haue power to sell all the Lands 
that he is possessed of." 3 Perhaps there had been already 
some sales by inhabitants of four years' standing, but this 
vote removed the former restriction upon all such settlers. 
Many lots were then bought and sold. It was a time when 
each inhabitant could readjust his real estate to his means 
and circumstances. This accounts for the fact that the 
record of original grants, made by the first and second 
recorders, is so often followed by entries, in John Steele's 
hand, of lots acquired by purchase. It also supports the 
conclusion that earlier entries were of lots received in their 
plantation divisions. In certain instances, it is valuable 

1 Burt's Hist, of Springfield, I: 158. 

2 See Introduction to Original Distribution, by Albert C Bates. 

3 Hartford Town Votes, I: 41. Cf. p. 1. 



PLANTATION DIVISIONS 133 

evidence that the prior owner was an early inhabitant — 
that is, he must have been an inhabitant four years, or his 
sale would have been illegal. Now, as the plantations had 
not been competent to make any new divisions after the 
adoption of the Constitution, until authorized by the 
General Court, there are conclusive reasons for the claim 
that these original grants had been made before January 
14, 1638-9, and were, therefore, plantation divisions. In 
other words, the first and second recorders, so far as returns 
had been made, entered in the town's book the various 
divisions of the North-side and South-side plantations. 
They have thus given us the names that were early applied 
to these tracts; lists of those who were inhabitants, or had 
secured an inhabitant's right, probably before these tracts 
were originally divided; some details as to the manner in 
which their divisions were conducted; evidence that certain 
settlers were, for various reasons, regarded with special 
favor and not a little information as to the topographical 
features of early Hartford. The order in recording these 
lots may also indicate, in a general way, their progress in 
developing the settlement. 

In 1640, it was not customary to give detailed descrip- 
tions of land. Under each settler's name is a list of his 
various tracts. His house-lot is first. The general location 
of his other tracts is usually given as in a section identified 
by its name. We have also the acreage and abutting 
owners, or bounds of the four sides. As no measurements 
are given, the plotting of these tracts is laborious. Some- 
times adjoining lots must be followed to a recognizable 
landmark. The amount of land in any district or division 
can only be ascertained by collecting all available data 
concerning it. Upon the total area other conclusions are 
based, such as the course of bounding highways, long since 
abandoned. The task is like putting together the fragments 
of a picture puzzle. Yet it is only by such tedious labor that 
one can recover an historic representation of early Hartford. 

The two plantations must have agreed in 1636 upon the 
Little River as the boundary between them. Then or 
later, they ran a line due west from the junction of its two 
forks. This was the southern bound of Bridgefield, in con- 



134 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

nection with which it is termed "the deuiding lyne betwene 
y e South & North side." This line is mentioned in quite 
recent conveyances. House-lots were the first allotment. 
These were intended to be about the same in size — "two 
acres more or less." They were so generally more, that in 
most sections there proved to be an excess of land. 1 House- 
lots given by courtesy were usually of smaller extent and 
were located in the same neighborhood. In the autumn 
of 1636, all the inhabitants who had then arrived were 
doubtless provided for. These house-lots have been plotted 
from the records by William S. Porter, in whose plan of 
Hartford in 1640 their location may be seen. In the older 
parts of the town, this plan is equally applicable to the 
plantations as they were in 1636. The division of other 
tracts in each plantation was doubtless begun in that year. 
Their immediate need of tillable land naturally turned 
their attention, first, to the Little Meadow, lying between 
Front Street and the river. It was the only tract on the 
west side of that river in which the inhabitants of both 
plantations participated as such, perhaps because the Dutch 
had the best meadow land on the South-side. They divided 
it into two sections, one lying north and the other south of 
the road leading eastward through it, now the lower end of 
State Street. The northern part contained about thirty- 
five acres. It was distributed among as many North-side 
inhabitants, four of the South -side being included with 
them. The size of the lots varied from thirty perches 

1 These lots were given out by estimate, which proved to be liberal. "In 
every case where original lines have been determined," says Mr. Washburn, 
"The amount of land within those lines has been proved to be from fifteen 
to twenty-five per cent greater than was called for." This may be accounted 
for by (the different chains then in use. Concerning this an old writer on 
surveying says: "The stationary distance, or merings of ground, are measured 
either by Gunter's chain of four poles or perches, which consists of 100 links; (and 
this is the natural division) or by one of 50 links, which contains two poles or 
perches: but because the length of a perch differs in many places, therefore 
the length of chains and their respective links will differ also. The English 
statute perch is 5£ yards, the two-pole chain is 11 yards, and the four-pole 
one is 22 yards; hence the length of a link in a statute-chain is 7.92 inches. 
There are other perches used in different parts of England, as the perch of 
woodland measure, which is 6 yards, that of church-land measure, which is 
7 yards, and the forest measure perch which is 8 yards." — The Theory and 
Practice of Surveying, by Robert Gibson, page 145. See also Hartford Town 
Votes, I: 72, 119. 



PLANTATION DIVISIONS 135 

to about two and a half acres. The highway to the 
landing ran through this section, and there was a road 
north and south in the southern part of it. The north 
bound of this meadow was the two-acre lot originally used 
for a cow-yard. Here the pioneers probably herded their 
cattle. On the east was the creek where they were watered. 
Just north of this lot was the road that crossed the creek by 
a bridge into the North Meadow, now at the foot of Pleas- 
ant Street. Here they maintained the meadow gate. The 
cow-yard had fallen into disuse before January 11, 1640-41, 
when the town gave it to Richard Olmsted in exchange for 
his house-lot, then taken for a burying-ground, now called 
the "Ancient Cemetery." The fact that this meadow lot 
was entered among his lands by the second recorder, proves 
that this scribe did not complete his work until after that 
date, and presumably John Steele had not succeeded him 
at the task. This lot was acquired later by Edward Steb- 
bins and descended to his heirs. 1 The southern section of 
the Little Meadow contained about twenty-seven acres. 
It was distributed among twenty-three South-side inhabit- 
ants. James Olmsted and Mathew Marvin of the North- 
side also shared with them, perhaps because of a prior 
occupation. The latter 's lot was an acre lying along the 
Connecticut River, from the division roadway southward 
to Dutch Point. West of this there was a row of small 
lots. The others in the western part of this section ran 
north and south, the larger ones being distributed to Haynes, 
Hopkins, Wyllys, Welles and Webster. Three acres at the 
point were then owned by the Dutch. All the participants 
in this division of the Little Meadow are thought to have 
had in 1636 an inhabitant's right in one of the plantations, 
although some of them had not as yet arrived. The indica- 
tions are that this tract was first used for corn-fields and 
gardens. 

The early settlers discovered at once the value of the 
North and South meadows, annually fertilized by the spring- 
time floods. The nearer portions of them were distributed 
in 1636. Other divisions were not long delayed. The 
North Meadow, or Long Meadow, extended from the gate 

1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 40, 41; Original Distribution, pp. 107, 190, 254, 255. 



136 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

at its entrance, northward along the Connecticut River to 
Windsor. Its western boundary was the "Little River 
falling out of the North Meadow," and, farther north, the 
Soldiers' Field, the Neck and the upland. It was distrib- 
uted exclusively among North-side inhabitants. At first, 
the southern portion was divided in small lots. All the 
original grantees are thought to have been legal inhabitants 
in 1636. Later, there was another division of larger lots. 
In both cases the allotments ran east and west. As dis- 
tributed this meadow contained about eight hundred acres. 
The land records indicate that about two-thirds of it were 
sufficiently cleared to be described as "meadow." The 
remainder was a thickly wooded swamp, lying largely along 
its western side, whence the creek flowed. Parts of it were 
named the "Dead Swamp." Here and there, other marshy 
places and pools are mentioned. Trees were then scattered 
over this meadow, but, if it was ever woodland, large open 
areas had been cleared by Indian fires for planting fields. 
The South Meadow offered the inhabitants on that side of 
the Little River a large proportion of tillable land. It 
extended from the Great River to the upland, and southward 
to Wethersfield. The northern portion had a desirable 
breadth. Some of this land had been already cultivated. 
Lots here were very convenient, and it is not strange that 
the settlers crowded the Dutch. They laid out a tier of 
lots along the Little and Connecticut rivers, from Governor 
Hopkins's house-lot to the Indian Land, reserving only the 
site of the House of Hope and the Dutchmen's bouwerie. 
On the southwest, these lots were bounded by the "Road 
to the Indian Land." On the other side of this road, large 
lots were granted to the principal South-side inhabitants. 
In the meadow, farther south, there were at least four 
divisions. For these they chose apparently the open areas 
not occupied by the Indian reservations. There were 
several forty-acre lots, some of which actually contained 
considerably more than that amount. After the larger 
divisions had been made, other tracts, as Porter says, were 
taken up by "pitches." The records show that several 
individuals were associated in the ownership of certain tracts. 
There remained large areas of swamp. Some of these were 



PLANTATION DIVISIONS 137 

gradually cleared and cultivated. Haynes' Swamp became 
in time Haynes' Meadow, and Ward's Swamp became Ward's 
Meadow. Great Swamp was the largest, lying along the 
river near Wethersfield bounds. There were also the Swamp 
by the Great River, Dead Swamp, Clayboard Swamp, Dry 
Swamp and Wet Swamp, with "Nod" near at hand. East 
of the Dead Swamp was the Great Pasture. There was also 
a Hangdog Pasture. Cole's Island, otherwise called Penny- 
wise Island, Peck's Island or Standish Island, was at 
Wethersfield bounds. It was involved in the town's bound- 
ary disputes. Lots acquired later from the Indian Land 
are usually so described. More than any section of early 
Hartford, the South Meadow was altered in extent within 
a few years. The lots of owners were increased or dimin- 
ished, from time to time, by the fickle current of the Great 
River. In the divisions of this meadow, Haynes, Hooker, 
Stone and Goodwin shared with the South-side inhabitants. 
It was utilized to a considerable extent in raising cattle. 
Upwards of five hundred acres were early brought under 
improvement. 

One of the earliest needs of each plantation was pasturage 
for cattle. Herders drove their cows to pasture in the 
morning and returned them at night. The North-side 
residents found a convenient place at the upper end of their 
settlement. Here they set apart, at an early date, about 
four hundred acres, and called it the "Cow Pasture." It 
was bounded on the south by Westfield, Venturers' Field 
and Pinefield. The northernmost lots in Venturers' Field 
were those of Thomas Stanley and Richard Goodman, who 
are named in the records as abutting owners. Probably 
this tract was laid out before a highway, now Albany Ave- 
nue, separated it from this field. The Cow Pasture was 
bounded as one tract in the entries made by the early 
recorders, and was held in common for some years. The 
proportions, however, were known and are recorded. At a 
later date, the common land on the north, to Windsor 
bounds, was allotted, and the abutting owners of each lot 
are given. This tract is also described as in the Cow Pas- 
ture. The same is true of the land along Blue Hills, west 
of the Little Ox Pasture, extending to the river, though 



138 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

lots there were named later after that locality. 1 At first, 
this pasture land was heavily wooded. Here the early 
settlers obtained much of the timber used in their buildings. 
Thus it was gradually cleared. Some lots have been traced 
in the deeds from woodland to pasture and then to fenced 
farm land. Porter estimated this entire tract as containing 
about one thousand acres. 

East of this pasture was the Neck — a name then applied 
to a narrow strip of land. It extended from Village Street 
northward, along the hillside slope, to Windsor. On the 
east was the North Meadow swamp for a long distance. 
The common fence or road to Windsor was the western 
bound, separating it from the Cow Pasture, on which earlier 
allotments abutted. 2 There were two divisions in the Neck 
among North-side inhabitants. It contained about four 
hundred acres. 

The Little Ox Pasture was west of the original Cow 
Pasture. It was a tract of about one hundred and sixty 
acres, divided into nineteen lots, lying on either side of a 
highway running north and south through it, now Vine 
Street. The land north of it was then common. South of 
it was the road leading, in successive stages of development, 
to the Common, Blue Hills or Simsbury, now Albany Ave- 
nue. This pasture was an early division. It seems to 
have been allotted to certain inhabitants who were omitted 
in other divisions. All these north end tracts were used 
at first for pasturage. 

We do not know of any cow pasture held in common by 
South-side inhabitants. They had, however, their Ox 
Pasture of large extent, which was probably put to such 
uses. It included the land from the South Meadow on the 
east, to a north and south line running, says Porter, "on the 
east side of the burying ground," now on Maple Avenue and 
called the "South Burying Ground." On the north were 
their house-lots. At first about four hundred acres were 
distributed in large lots to the wealthier inhabitants. An- 

1 Blew Hills was a frequent designation in early New England for hills having 
that color when seen at a distance. The present spelling "Blue Hills" was rare 
in those times, and became common later through French influence. 

2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 163; Original Distribution, pp. 160, 132, 187. 



PLANTATION DIVISIONS 139 

other division later, extended this. pasture to the Wethers- 
field line. The south-east section was sometimes called 
"Southfield." Through these large lots the path, lane or 
highway to Wethersfield ran. Poke Hill was west of it in 
the second division. Much of this tract was marshy land 
and was partly drained by a brook, which ran south in Hart- 
ford and emptied into the Connecticut River in Wethersfield. 
The Folly Brook channel eastward was cut through in 1726, 
to further this drainage. The less prominent inhabitants 
had liberal plantation allotments on both sides of the road, 
from "George Steele's to the Great Swamp." This highway 
originally ran along Lafayette Street, curving to the south- 
east a little north of Park and reaching Washington near 
Ward Street. West of it was the upland "Forty Acres," 
a plantation division of small lots made among neighboring 
residents of the town's courtesy class. On the north was the 
highway over "Rocky Hill toward the Little River," called 
later Baker's Lane, now Ward Street. It was an early road 
to West Hartford. Zion Street led thence to the Stone Pits. 
There were other divisions south and west of this tract. 
They extended westward to Rocky Hill and continued south- 
ward eventually to Wethersfield line. 1 West of Rocky Hill, 
four hundred acres were divided in large lots. The Great 
Swamp contained about the same amount. Much of it is 
now included in Goodwin Park. The entries of some of 
these upland lots were made by the second recorder. The 
division was doubtless made at an early date. At first this 
region was wooded and wild, but it was rapidly improved. 
Cedar Mountain was a famous resort for wolves, which made 
predatory raids upon the settlers' animals. Large holes 
were excavated, baited and covered with brush to trap them. 
These were called "wolf pounds," or "wolf pits." Jeremy 
Adams willed his lot "at the wolfe pound" to his son-in-law, 
Zachary Sandford. This was near Zachary's Lane, now 
Vernon Street. Men were employed by the town to hunt 
these wolves, and a reward was offered for killing them. 2 
Early meadow divisions on the east side of Connecticut 

1 Porter's Historical Notices, No. 2, p. 30; The Hartford Times, Aug. 8, 1890. 

2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 11, 35, 58, 88, 159, 204; Original Distribution, pp. 
196, 292, etc.; Conn. Col. Rec, I: 149, 283, 377, 561. 



140 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

River were made by both plantations. These were not 
exclusively to the legal inhabitants. Residents of small 
means, later arrivals and young men participated. As a 
rule each plantation divided the land on its side of an east 
and west line, but there were many exceptions. These 
lots extended eastward to the Meadow Bank road. The 
North-side tract was sometimes called Podunk; and Hoek- 
anura was the name usually applied to South-side lots. In 
the latter district large grants were made to the more promi- 
nent settlers. This East-side land was used mainly for hay 
and pasturage. When these early divisions were made, 
the eastern bound was "upland," a tract held in common 
by the proprietors of 1639 for many years, as already stated. 

It is convenient now to begin at the square and note the 
divisions westward. The first outlying tract to be appro- 
priated for house-lots was Westfield. Some of these were 
taken in the early summer of 1636, others in 1637. The 
name suggests its location — west of the town-plot. Its 
eastern boundary was Trumbull Street. The highway from 
Centinel Hill to the Cow Pasture was on the north. This 
road then continued beyond Tunnel Green toward Belden 
Street, thence turning westward. A line running south- 
ward from that point to the Little River was approximately 
its western boundary, and afterwards the west bound of the 
city. Following this line it separated Venturers' Field on 
the west from a row of five Westfield lots, which abutted 
east on the road from the Cow Pasture to Mr. Allyn's land, 
now High Street. Some rods north of Church Street it 
crossed the road to Venturers' Field or Brick-kiln, running 
westward. South of this road were the remaining seven lots 
of the above row, abutting west on the Birck-kiln lot, and 
then Mr. Allyn's ten-acre swamp lying along Gully Brook. 
On this lot the railroad station is now located. Westfield 
was unquestionably a plantation division, but it was not 
allotted by any rule, being reserved apparently for North- 
side house-lots. 

Venturers' Field was a rectangular tract, through which 
there ran a north and south roadway from the Cow Pasture 
to the Swamp, now approximately Edwards Street. On 
the east side there were four lots, Nathaniel Ely's Brick-kiln 



PLANTATION DIVISIONS 141 

lot completing the tier. On the west side there were eight, 
the southernmost owned by John Steele being poorer land 
and nearly twice the size of the others. South of it was 
William Wadsworth's swamp lot of eight acres. This field 
contained about forty-one and a half acres, including Ely's 
lot. It was distributed, as elsewhere stated, to adventurers 
of 1635. 

Pinefield bounded this tract on the west. A roadway 
followed the ravine westward into it, continuing northwest 
to the north fork of the Little River, otherwise called Ox 
Pasture River, West River or Woods River. This road 
intersected another passing through the tract from the Cow 
Pasture to the Old Ox Pasture. The north boundary was 
Albany Avenue. The road from the Mill into the Woods, 
or into the Country, now Asylum Avenue, was on the south. 
Its western boundary was an early road about where Sig- 
ourney Street now runs. This probably followed an Indian 
path northward from Rocky Hill, crossing Little River near 
the upper falls and diverging to the northwest to pass over 
Woods River near Albany Avenue, or to continue along the 
ridge of Blue Hills. About seventy acres in Pinefield were 
divided among twenty-seven North-side settlers, some being 
of the town's courtesy class. The name was suggested by 
the pine trees which grew in this section and are mentioned 
in the records. In more recent times this section has been 
called "Tower Hill," "Lord's Hill" and "Asylum Hill." 
The last name is now often applied to the entire west section 
of the city. 

The Middle Ox Pasture extended westward from Pine- 
field to common land or Woods River. This pasture is 
bounded as one tract in the record of the original grants, 
which was made by the second recorder. It appears to 
have been given in certain proportions to six inhabitants, 
about 1639, and to have been laid out later. Perhaps 
it was a special allotment in recognition of some public 
service. Here William Spencer acquired sixty-three acres 
before his death, partly under the privilege of exchange. 1 

1 The original grantees were William Spencer, Dea. Edward Stebbins, William 
Kelsey, Serg. Thomas Spencer, William Parker and William Ruscoe. The 6rst 
four lots were acquired by William Spencer, and were on the west side of the tract. 



142 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

The remaining North-side woodland, east of the north 
fork of the Little River, was included in the Old Ox Pasture. 
On the north was the road from the Mill into the Country, 
and the tract extended southward to the river. This was 
a plantation division made, it is believed, in 1638 or 1639. 
The participants were the more prominent North-side in- 
habitants, and their lots were large. Seventy-two acres 
along its southern side and east of the cross-road near Sig- 
ourney Street, were granted in one tract to Governor John 
Haynes, Rev. Samuel Stone and Rev. Thomas Hooker. 
Their respective shares, as laid out, were forty, twelve and 
twenty acres. The Hartford Public High School is on 
Governor Haynes's lot. Much of Mr. Hooker's is now in- 
cluded in the Dixon place. The rest of this ox pasture is 
also bounded in the records as one tract, the individual 
proportions being given. Probably the lots had not been 
laid out when the second recorder made his entries. A 
few recorded later name the abutting owners. There were 
about twenty original grantees who thus divided nearly 
five hundred acres. The lots west of Sigourney Street ran 
east and west. Mathew Allyn's was the largest and con- 
tained sixty-four acres. Other original owners were Wads- 
worth, Chaplin, Talcott, Pantry, James Olmsted, Westwood, 
Steele, Marvin, Scott, Lewis, Hart, William Goodwin, 
Thomas Stanley, Goodman, Richards, Webb and Grant. 
Their proportions were in the order named. The lots at 
the southern end of this tract, amounting to one hundred 
acres, were acquired by Rev. Joseph Haynes and constituted 
the "Nook Farm." It descended to his son John Haynes 
and, at his decease in 1713, it was described as "in the Nook 
of the River." Its value was then £100. Other lands 
located in the bends of rivers bore this name. There was 
a "nook" farther north, on Woods River. 

The division and development of the land west of the two 
forks of the Little River were materially affected by the 
course of the highways leading thither. The earliest com- 
munication with Farmington was by the Old Farmington 

In 1684 William Edwards, who had married widow Agnes Spencer, conveyed this 
tract to Thomas Lord (Land Rec, 1: 84). William Parker's six acres and William 
Ruscoe's fifteen acres were sold in 1684 to Joseph Collier (Orig. Dint., p. 339). 



PLANTATION DIVISIONS 143 

Road along Retreat and New Britain avenues. This road 
passed through the southern section of the Town Common. 
North of it was Baker's Road, over Rocky Hill, which crossed 
Hog River near Hamilton or Park Street, and ran through 
the Common to John Seymour's, or Major's Corner. This 
was an early highway to the West Division and was some- 
times called the Middle Road to Farmington. Farther 
north, was Gurney's Road. This was originally projected 
as an extension of the road from the Mill into the Country, 
to reach the Common. In 1686, Joseph Wads worth con- 
veyed land to the town for that purpose, receiving in ex- 
change a tract on Simsbury Road. 1 This extension was 
accomplished later, through John Gurney's land to the river. 
The bridge was known as Gurney's Bridge. In 1754, this 
highway was laid out from the river to Prospect Avenue. 
The same year a road from Wadsworth's, over the "First 
Hill" southward, was opened. This route to West Hartford 
was by Gurney's Road, along the above road southward to 
Fern Street, where it turned westward. Still farther north, 
was the Simsbury Road already mentioned. It crossed 
the Little River at the Sheep's Bridge. The part just be- 
yond, which passed the Wadsworth homestead, was some- 
times called "Wadsworth's Road." It was also known as 
the "Old North Road." In 1798, the General Assembly 
laid it out as Talcott Mountain Turnpike. Nearer the 
Windsor bounds there was another road. It was projected 
in 1727, and was to run from the northeast corner of John 
Pantry's lot on Blue Hills, westward to "Cole Pitt Plain," 
then across Pantry's Brook, where there was a bridge, and 
so to continue to the place where Nathaniel Jones first began 
to make a dam. 2 In 1754 it was laid out through the 
Common. It was little used and was finally discontinued. 
This road is now the western portion of Tower Avenue. 
There was probably in earliest times a cartway from the 

1 Hartford Land Records, 1: 73; Hartford Town Votes, I: 259, 263, 265, 275, 283, 
291, 319; MS. Vol. II: 91; State Archives: Towns and Lands, II: 79-84. 

2 Nathaniel Jones married in 1713 Rebecca Pantry. They were the parents of 
Pantry Jones. In 1719 the town gave Nathaniel Jones liberty to erect a fulling 
mill on West River, and he was to hold the land while he had a mill there. Appar- 
ently he abandoned his first intent. This road can now be easily traced to the 
river, and the shoulder of Jones's dam remains, near a large oak tree. 



144 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Old Ox Pasture gate through the woods into the southern 
section of the pasture. A highway to Haynes' Nook is men- 
tioned in 1755. At the beginning of the last century, there 
arose a demand for a direct road to West Hartford. The 
General Assembly, therefore, in 1801 laid out Asylum Street 
through lands then undeveloped, as a part of the Farmington 
Turnpike Road. Thus Farmington Avenue, from the 
junction westward, was established through the Old Ox 
Pasture. 1 It passed through Mathew Allyn's original lot. 
Part of this was acquired in 1818 by Joseph Morgan, when 
he bought his farm on the north side of this road. His 
farm-house stood on the elevation called in early times "Ox 
Pasture Hill," near the site of the Cathedral. 

All undivided lands in early times were called "commons." 
This term was applied to various tracts in Hartford. One 
of these was concretely named the "Town Common." On 
January 30, 1672-3, the proprietors, who had recently ac- 
quired by repurchase from the Indians a new title to the 
lands west of those already divided, voted to distribute a 
mile and a half of the west end the whole length of the town's 
bounds. This was the West Division. The Mountain 
Road was its west line. It was divided among the proprie- 
tors according to the rule of 1639, in which proportion they 
had been assessed for the recent purchase. They also voted 
that the remainder, next to the lots already laid out, "Shall 
be & remayn a common foreuer for the ufe & benifitt of 
the Inhabitants of Hartford." 2 This tract was west of the 
forks of the Little River, and east of the one and a half mile 
tract. Its western bound was near Quaker Lane. On the 
north it extended to Windsor, and, on the south, to Wethers- 
field, now Newington. The only land in this Common that 
had been already granted was Bridgefield. It was a rec- 
tangular tract bounded south on the dividing line between 
the two plantations, and east on the Little River. The 
sides were two hundred rods east and west, and two hundred 
and twenty-eight rods north and south. It contained two 

1 See articles on Asylum Street and Farmington Avenue in The Hartford Times, 
April 15, May 6, 1890, May 8, 1907, and March 9, 1909; and in The Hartford 
Courant, May 21, 1887. 

1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 253, 254; MS. Vol. II: 54; Original Distribution, 
pp. 551, 555. 



PLANTATION DIVISIONS 145 

hundred and eighty-five acres. Farmington Avenue now 
divides this ancient field. In the records, it is bounded as 
one tract. The earliest entries were made by John Steele, 
indicating that it was not a plantation division. It was 
laid out in 1697. 1 Among the original grantees were Haynes, 
Hooker, Goodwin, John Allyn, Talcott, Stebbins, Wads- 
worth, Goodman and Lewis. The names of some are un- 
known. The John Knowles farm was in this field and 
partly made up of Governor Haynes's lot. The development 
of Bridgefield had been carried on many years before the 
common land about it was divided. In its general char- 
acter, the Common was woodland. It remained such for 
many years. All the trees of the forest grew there. The 
town frequently found it necessary to restrain the slaughter 
of them. 2 Here and there, gigantic oaks are now standing 
that escaped because they defied the woodsman's ax. This 
Common was not altogether without activities. In 1732, 
some acres of Pine Tree Hill were fenced for a sheep pasture. 
It was land that Daniel Clark asked liberty to improve in 
1699. Pine Hill, probably in the same neighborhood, was 
a tract bounded on the west, north and east by West River. 3 
In 1741, John Seymour Jr. leased from the town land in 
the Common for tanvats. The name "Stone Pit Hill" was 
applied to a tract bounded east, south and west by Woods 
River, and north by Simsbury Road. 4 Here Timothy 
Andrews and Nehemiah Cadwell received liberty to set up 
a sawmill, in 1744. Presumably it was the same location 
granted, in 1697, to Jonathan Ashley and John Marsh. At 
the south end of the Common, near Piper's River, there 
was another sheep pasture, probably for the South-side 
inhabitants. At various times, the entire tract was put to 
such uses. After about seventy-five years, however, its 
career as a Common came to an end. 5 It had been en- 
croached upon from the west. The rest of the land was 
wanted for farm use. Its original projectors were dead. 

1 Harfford Town Votes, I: 249, 254; Original Distribution, pp. 554, 555. 

2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 220, 221, 271, 312, 321, 322; MS. Vol. II: 20. 

3 Hartford Land Records, 3: 306; 5: 616; 7: 99; Hartford Town Votes, I: 
256, 259; MS. Vol. II: 80, 114. 

* Hartford Land Records, 20: 633; 28: 510; 44: 285. 

* Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 4; The Hartford Times, June 5, 1893. 



146 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Still the "heirs and assigns" of the proprietors of 1639 were 
alive and they owned it. At least the Court so decided, 
after a memorable contest, as elsewhere related. In 1754, 
the old Town Common was laid out in thirty-three tiers of 
lots, and the tract was thus divided among the inhabitants 
as preserved in the records. The list of participants fur- 
nishes a valuable census of Hartford residents at that time. 1 
The division of Soldiers' Field has been reserved for 
special consideration, as it is generally admitted that the 
original grantees of its lots were Hartford's soldiers in 
the Pequot War. This tract extended from the road to 
the North Meadow, now Pleasant Street, northward to the 
swamp, and had the creek on the east. Its western bound 
going north, was, in turn, the first Neck road, the swamp, 
William Cornwall's lot and the Neck. There was an early 
path or lane through it, from Mr. Allyn's house to the creek. 
This was allowed to him, probably when the lots were dis- 
tributed. South of it there were three one-rood lots. The 
narrowest part of the tract was at its southern end. Its 
width varied farther north. Porter reckoned the area of 
this field as about fifteen acres. The calculations of Mr. 
Francis H. Parker, based upon later ownership, make it 
twenty-eight acres. 2 About one-half of its lots are recorded 
as containing one rood. These were doubtless original 
allotments. When the entries were made several had two 
or three roods, and there were two four-acre lots. The 
names of the twenty-nine owners recovered by Mr. Parker, 
beginning at the north end, are as follows: Edward Elmer, 
John Peirce, John Holloway, Nicholas Desborough, Benja- 
min Munn, Nicholas Gennings, John Warner, John Purchase, 
Thomas Root, William Pratt, Sergeant William Cornwall, 
Richard Goodman, Zachary Field, Thomas Munson, Thomas 
Barnes, William Phillips, Samuel Hale, Thomas Hale, Ser- 
geant Thomas Spencer, Stephen Hart, John Bronson, 
William Hayden, Thomas Olcott, Richard Olmsted, William 
Blumfield, Jonathan Ince, George Steele, Nicholas Clarke 

1 "Records of Hartford Town Common" in the State Library; "Town Common 
Papers," in the collections of the Connecticut Historical Society; Hartford Land 
Records, 8: last pages. 

2 "The Soldiers' Field and its Original Proprietors," by Francis H. Parker, MS. 
in collections of the Connecticut Historical Society. 



PLANTATION DIVISIONS 147 

and John Clarke. It is known, however, that other Hart- 
ford settlers served in the Pequot War, whose names are 
not found in this list. 1 Several additional soldiers are 
mentioned in narratives of the war. These are Rev. Samuel 
Stone, Thomas Bull, Philip Davis, Nicholas Olmsted, Arthur 
Smith and Thomas Stanton. The Colony also granted land 
to others for such service. If all the following received their 
grants for this reason, as some did, their names should be 
added to the list: Peter Blachford (Col. Rec, II: 161), 
Thomas Blatchley or Blakesley (Col. Rec, II: 133), Thomas 
Bunce (Col. Rec, II: 154), John Hall (Col. Rec, IV: 276), 
John Hills (Col. Rec, II: 161), Thomas Hurlbut (Col. Rec, 
II: 161; V: 379), William Parker (Col. Rec, II: 196), 
John Stone (Col. Rec, II: 100), Henry Walkley (Col. Rec, 
II: 112), and Samuel Whitehead (Col. Rec, II: 150). 
The Colonial Records also confirm the claims of twelve, 
who had grants in Soldiers' Field. Various authorities, 
presumably on good evidence, have added to these the 
names of Benjamin Burr, Captain John Cullick, Robert 
Sanford and John Stanley. In the three levies of the 
Pequot War, Hartford was called upon for sixty-one sol- 
diers. We have in the above lists the names of forty- 
nine, and twelve are missing. Thomas Gridley and Edward 
Lay are said to have enlisted from other towns, but being 
later in Hartford, they may have been recognized here as 
soldiers, by the town's bounty. 

It is obvious that Soldiers' Field was not distributed before 
1637. Reasons are given elsewhere for the opinion that 
this tract was the site of the Indian village, and was sur- 
rendered to the English after the war, probably for the 
benefit of the soldiers. While the majority in the above 
lists were afterwards proprietors, a considerable number 
obtained their privileges by the town's courtesy. Most of 
these are believed to have been recent arrivals when war 
was declared. Some were young men, and perhaps had 
emigrated in the service of older planters. It is noticeable 
and significant, however, that only nine or ten of the lists 
can be classed as South-side residents. That plantation 
would certainly have furnished more than ten soldiers in 

1 See Connecticut Soldiers in the Pequot War of 1637, by James Shepard. 



148 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

the Pequot War. We conjecture, therefore, that the 
missing men were of the South-side, who had less use for 
Soldiers' Field lots, and that they had at once sold their 
rights to North-side soldiers, in whose proportions they are 
included. To the latter, such lots were very valuable, 
especially for garden use. John Bronson, William Hayden, 
and others who lived near, may have thus acquired their 
larger proportions. Soldiers' Field was of sufficient extent 
to have provided a one-rood lot as a bounty for all of Hart- 
ford's soldiers, with a larger grant to any who were officers 
or had rendered special service. 

The possession of these meadow lots, however, would not 
have been the first consideration to any late arrivals or 
young men of this victorious army. They needed, and 
would have desired above all else, house-lots — that primary 
grant of a plantation, which invited and established their 
residence. The principle and practice of the inhabitants 
in their divisions are strongly opposed to any gift of meadow 
lots without a prior assignment of house-lots. Their 
probable order of action was, that each plantation granted 
house-lots to its soldiers, who were not already provided 
for, and then the recently vacated meadow was divided by 
a committee among all their soldiers. Let us look for these 
house-lots. On the north side of the road from Centinel 
Hill to the Cow Pasture, now North Main Street, there was 
a row of such lots. Most of them were one-half acre in 
size. The original owners going west were John Holloway, 
Thomas Spencer, Thomas Fisher, Zachary Field, Thomas 
Root, Benjamin Munn, Samuel Hale, Benjamin Burr, John 
Warner, W 7 illiam Pratt, Nicholas Gennings, John Peirce, 
Daniel Garrad, Nicholas Desborough and Richard Seymour. 
All of these names are found in the above list of soldiers, 
excepting Thomas Fisher, Daniel Garrad and Richard 
Seymour. In 1640, the town gave Nicholas Gennings 's 
lot in Soldiers' Field to Daniel Garrad. The house-lots of 
Thomas Fisher and John Peirce had been sequestered for 
them, but neither was sufficiently prominent to deserve a 
reservation as a proprietor. 1 The latter surrendered his 
and settled on the south side of the Little River. Across 

1 Original Distribution, pp. 152, 157. 



PLANTATION DIVISIONS 149 

the road from this row of house-lots, were those of Thomas 
Barnes, Thomas Munson, William Phillips, John Purchase 
and Thomas Hale — all of them soldiers. John Bronson, 
Sergeant William Cornwall and William Hayden lived 
just below the hill on the east. Was there also a distribu- 
tion of such house-lots in the South-side Plantation? Along 
the road from George Steele's to the Great Swamp, now 
Lafayette Street, we find another row of house-lots, prob- 
ably allotted in 1637 or 1638. Most of these also contained 
one-half acre. Their original owners going south were 
William Holton, Paul Peck, Henry Walkley, Richard Watts, 
William Watts, William Westley, Edward Lay, John 
Olmsted, John Peirce, Richard Risley and George Steele. 
This row overlapped, and Thomas Selden, Thomas Bliss, 
Sen., and Thomas Bliss, Jr., had one-half acre lots in the 
rear. Across the lane northward was the house-lot of 
Thomas Bunce, and below the hill, was that of William 
Blumfield. The names of six of these grantees are found 
in the above list of soldiers. Captain Thomas Watts, the 
renowned Indian fighter of 1675, was a son of Richard and 
younger brother of William Watts. Dr. John Olmsted 
was a surgeon in that service. Several of this group re- 
moved at an early date to other plantations. Others died 
before 1670. Thomas Selden forfeited his lot, but in 1640 
the townsmen were authorized to make him an allowance 
for his improvements. 1 Edward Lay had also then for- 
feited his, by neglect to build upon it, but the town offered 
to restore it upon the same conditions. Only five of the 
entire number were alive, when the Colony made its grants 
of land for service in the Pequot War, and Thomas Bunce 
and Paul Peck were the only residents of Hartford. 

These are the facts disclosed in an unprejudiced study of 
the land records. They do not constitute historical evidence 
upon which to base an affirmation, that all the original 
owners of these two groups of house-lots did military service 
in 1637. In the author's opinion, however, they make 
such a conclusion seem quite probable. They at least 
furnish thirteen new names for consideration. The missing 
soldiers of the South-side quota should be sought among 

1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 42. 



150 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

the same class of inhabitants that furnished the majority 
from the North-side. For an expedition into the enemy's 
country, younger men and recent arrivals could better be 
spared from the defenders of both plantations, which might 
be assaulted at any moment. After this little army re- 
turned victorious beyond all expectations, the inhabitants 
of Hartford could do nothing less than receive their heroes 
as residents of their plantations, and enroll their names at 
least among the recipients of the town's courtesy, of which 
class the soldiers in the Pequot War constitute a large 
proportion. 



CHAPTER X 
GROWTH OF THE TOWN 

We invite the reader's company in the early springtime of 
1640, as we stand together on the brow of Ox Pasture Hill 
and look toward the rising sun, that we may view the 
growing settlement of the proprietors of Hartford. All the 
sights one sees to-day from the broad avenue that climbs 
this hill westward, must be forgotten — the Capitol, the 
park, the railroad, the high buildings and the teeming 
thoroughfare. We are at the pasture gate, on the western 
border of a pioneer settlement. The woodland is behind 
us. A cartway, passing by a rude bridge over Brick-kiln 
Brook and winding northward, leads up the partly cleared 
hillside to our feet. A panorama is within our view, ex- 
tending from the present Tunnel Park to the South Green. 
Four years before, this tract was clothed with the forest. 
An army of woodsmen has marched through it. Their 
axes have left many scattered survivors, but everywhere 
we see the logs and stumps that witness to their slaughter. 
A limpid stream is visible on the south, flowing from the 
woodland. Overhanging bushes border its banks. It en- 
circles two or three islands in the lowland and, beyond, 
tumbles over a fall and disappears from view. The land 
we see is rough and hilly. To the right beyond the stream, 
is a hill — now crowned with marble, which rises in stately 
proportions to a gilded dome. Another hill, of conical shape, 
is in the distance on the left, where, perhaps, we descry a 
sentinel's lookout. In places, there are pools of water, or 
patches of marsh grass. Just at the base of the hill, where 
we stand, is a swamp, some acres in extent. It borders a 
brook that flows down a gully from the northwest. Through 
the leafless trees we can see, here and there, newly built 
log-houses, and a few more pretentious. Some are in 
process of erection. About them are plain out-buildings, 






152 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

strongly framed of unhewn logs, with fenced yards con- 
venient for use, and gardens whose fertile soil hungers for 
the tillage of civilization. In such a manner had these 
settlers been accustomed to group the buildings that housed 
their possessions in old England — even as the traveller 
sees them to this day. At the eastern limit of our view, 
these pioneer homes, separated by liberal intervals, seem to 
have ranged themselves in a row from north to south, with 
flanking rows from east to west, disclosing the location of 
their main highways. Still farther east, down the slope, 
is a parallel roadway. Its homes face a meadow, and 
beyond is a great river. The stream that flows eastward 
divides this settlement into two plantations. In some 
measure, these topographical features directed the course 
of their growth. 

The area we have thus described, was largely the scene of 
Hartford's development west of the river for about two 
centuries, excepting only that of the agricultural interests 
in the suburbs. Of this settlement in 1638, DeVries wrote, 
it has "a fine church and a hundred houses." An examina- 
tion of the entries of houses, made in the records in 1640, 
shows that there were then at least sixty-three on the 
North-side and fifty-three on the South-side, or one hundred 
and sixteen in all. Some of the young men, or recent 
arrivals, then recorded only "a parcel for a house lot." 
Many of these houses were small habitations of the poorer 
settlers. In 1654 the rateable persons in this pioneer com- 
munity were only 177. Decades passed and added little 
to its population. A census was made by the selectmen in 
1761. It shows the increase of one hundred and twenty- 
five years. There were then only 156 families on the 
North-side, or 868 whites and 68 blacks. On the South- 
side there were 720 whites and 41 blacks. East of the river 
the population was 1588, and, in the West Division, 653. 
Thus the total of the town's inhabitants was only 3938. * 
This was a few hundred larger than the present population 
of Suffield, which town may suffice to picture Hartford in 
1761. Its list of estates that year was £39826 lis. 6d. 
There were nine towns in the Colony that exceeded this. 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, XI: 574 n. 



GROWTH OF THE TOWN 153 

The census of 1756 gives Hartford a population of 3027. 
This was surpassed by Windsor and Farmington. In 1774 
the population had increased to 5031, and, in 1782, to 5495. l 
The year before the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, 
the males in Hartford, from twenty to seventy years of age 
inclusive, were 1022. In 1790, when Hartford was a newly 
incorporated city, its population was 4090. Even so 
recently as 1830, when nearing its bicentennial, its appear- 
ance was that of a country town, with 9789 inhabitants. 
An enumeration of its houses in 1786 gave the North-side 
190, and the South-side 60, which was fifty less than Presi- 
dent Ezra Stiles estimated were in the town. 2 

The deductions from such facts are obvious. Our study 
is concerned with a rural community. Compared with 
modern times, the changes were few in the course of years. 
Time slipped along and men were born, lived and died, 
without witnessing any such alterations as every decade 
now brings. Public improvements were forced by necessity, 
rather than popular favor or artistic taste. No new vehicle 
was invented that involved a revolution in the customs of 
travel. The town's roads were repaired from time to time, 
but the rider on horseback, and the farmer's cart, followed 
the familiar trail of red mud for generations. Indeed, 
about 1830 Mr. G. W. Kappell published a humorous paper 
in Hartford, in which he narrated the experience of a citizen 
who went to a hat lying in the street north of the State 
House. He found a man under it. When he asked if 
help was needed, the man replied: "No, I have a good 
horse under me, and I guess I can get through." In colonial 
times there was no demand for anything better than the 
old dirt road. Grass grew along it, where the sheep and 
cattle browsed on their way to pasture. The survivors of 
the primeval forest, such as the Charter Oak, disappeared 
one by one. Young trees were set out, or allowed to grow 
up along the highways and about their homes. They came 
to large proportions, but sometimes the descendants of 
those who planted them still occupied the old homestead. 
The first century saw no conspicious changes in the simple 
architecture of their buildings. As a settler's means in- 

1 Ibid., XIV: 485. J Diary of Ezra Stiles, III: 237. 266. 



154 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

creased, and saw-mills prepared abundant material, the 
pioneer's log cabin gave place to a framed house. It was 
many years before some of the original house-lots were 
divided up, and the early groups of buildings were scattered. 
Yet, little by little, the settlement of the founders was 
transformed. The disorder of wilderness life disappeared. 
Fields were cleared and seeded down. Stumps went to 
decay. Hillocks were leveled. Swales were filled up. 
Fences set bounds to their highways, and the trees spread 
over them arches of shade. Such was the town in which 
we are interested. To recover it from those early times, the 
imagination must rebuild it, using such materials as the 
ancient records furnish. 

The early years of the settlers were chiefly devoted to 
two spheres of labor, in the course of which the town was 
developed without any special plan. These involved wide- 
spread activities. The first was their building operations. 
There were masons, carpenters and men of other trades in 
the town, but most of this work was done by the settlers 
themselves, with such supervision or assistance. Those 
well built houses that have survived to recent times were 
exceptions rather than the rule. One hundred houses of 
the simplest type involved a deal of labor. If we compute 
the number of trees required to erect them, with their out- 
buildings and fences, we can readily understand how the 
settlers would have cut off most of the available timber 
within the town-plot before 1640. At first they dug "saw- 
pits" where the trees had been felled. Over these they 
rolled the logs. The familiar "whip-saw" was used, a 
"top-man" working it from above and a "pit-man" from 
below. Thus they prepared their timbers, planks and 
boards. Their progress in erecting buildings may be 
inferred from the fact that, on January 7, 1639-40, such 
pits as were on public land, or not in use, were ordered to be 
filled up, and all pits were to be protected by pales. The 
regulations passed by the town the previous month indicate 
that the settlers were even then seeking timber outside of 
their limits on common land, and that they were "cleaving 
and squaring" such timbers for the construction of better 
buildings than they had at first. 



GROWTH OF THE TOWN 155 

Stones were in demand for underpinning and chimneys. 
Their earliest supply was sought at the "falls" of the 
riveret, near Thomas Lord's house-lot. It is only recently 
that the removal of Daniels's dam disclosed signs of quarry- 
ing, which was probably done there in those times. One 
of their early orders, probably passed in 1637, forbade it 
longer. They then opened a quarry at the lower falls, 
where there is a ledge of red sandstone. It runs northwest 
underneath the municipal building, in erecting which much 
of it was excavated and placed along the banks of Park 
River. Specimens of these early building stones are some- 
times seen in old cellar walls, for, like oak timbers, they 
often passed from an early building to its successor. Later 
they took their stone from Rocky Hill. 

Bricks soon came into general use. The brick-kiln was 
established as early as 1637, in the hillside north of the 
railway station. Clay was found there or in the neighbor- 
hood, and the brook furnished a convenient supply of 
water. Probably each settler made his own bricks. If 
otherwise, the brickmaker's name is unknown. The kiln 
was sufficiently patronized to demand a road thither. It 
is believed to have been in operation for many years. In 
1685, the town granted Evan Davy liberty to make a brick- 
yard in the highway near Stephen Hopkins's lot, southwest 
of the Capitol. Perhaps he had made bricks in that neigh- 
borhood earlier, as he bought land there in 1681. A brick- 
yard was conducted in 1702 by Wilterton Merrill, James 
Easton and Richard Seymour. These bricks were of various 
sizes from the first. The reason may have been that they 
were put to different uses. Some were square and flat, as 
if for paving floors or walks. Larger sizes would be more 
suitable for chimneys; the smaller for filling in between 
the studs of a house wall. An old brick, bearing the date 
1672, and supposed to have been in the chimney of the first 
Prior house in East Windsor, is 7 inches long, 3£ inches 
wide and %\ inches thick. In the Richards house, the 
bricks were 8 inches long, 4 inches wide and 2£ inches 
thick, though the width and thickness were sometimes less. 
Those in the Dorus Barnard house were 8^ inches long, 4 
inches wide and 2§ inches thick. The Morrison house 



156 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

contains bricks of various sizes, probably because of its 
rebuilt masonry. In 1685, the General Court, noting the 
fact that there was a "variety of sizes used in the makeing 
of bricks," ordered that "the length of all bricks shall be 
nine inches and their bredth fower inches and a halfe and 
that they be two inches and a halfe thick." 1 An act was 
passed in 1770, making the size 8 inches long, 4 inches wide 
and 2 inches thick. It was quite common for an early 
brickmaker to put a date on one of his bricks, especially 
when he made a quantity for some particular building. 
Early handmade bricks can be found with the finger-prints 
of the maker upon them. Yet these bricks, being laid in 
clay and easily cleaned, frequently passed from one structure 
to another, so that the date does not always give the correct 
age of an edifice. Bricks of a later date were also used in 
repairs. It is an error to suppose that bricks were brought 
in any large quantity from England. 

The second sphere of their early labors was agriculture. 
There is ample evidence in the records that these were 
arduous. Other than Indian corn, they had little grain to 
consume for several years. Their limited supply of English 
wheat, rye and peas was needed for seed. The natives 
furnished much of their corn. At times this was scarce. 
In 1638, the price was 5s. per bushel. It was reduced to 
3s.. in 1641, and the next year to 2s. 6d., which was the 
standard of value for several years. Wheat was then 
4s. 4d. per bushel; rye and peas 3s. 6d. Grain was largely 
their medium of exchange, so they planted their fields with 
hard cash. As an example of the average planter, we may 
cite Richard Lyman's estate. He had suffered in the loss 
of cattle at the time of his removal. When he died in 1641, 
his herd numbered four, besides three goats and eight hogs. 
His inventory also shows that he had planted that year 
five acres of Indian corn, three roods of peas and barley, 
and an acre each of summer wheat, oats and meslin — a 
mixture of wheat and rye. Presumably this shows the 
progress of his agricultural labors after five years. James 
Olmsted, who died in 1640, had besides three horses, a herd 
of thirteen, the same number of swine and four goats. Of 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, III: 192. 



GROWTH OF THE TOWN 157 

Indian corn he had 160 bushels, 30 of summer wheat and 
12 of peas. William Wadsworth was a prosperous farmer 
of early times. At his death in 1675, he had 11 cows, 1 
bull, 4 yoke of bullocks, 10 young cattle, 7 calves, 13 hogs, 
4 young swine, 5 horses, 3 colts and a mare with her colt. 
The raising of sheep increased in later colonial times. In 
1671, the town ordered certain highways, then to be staked 
out, "to bee Cleered for sheepe pasture." A shepherd was 
in charge of the flock. Complaint was made in 1774, that 
the sheep turned into the highways ate up the grass used 
by the poor inhabitants. 1 At this time, Hartford was a 
thriving agricultural community. A visitor in 1788 says, 
"It is a confiderable rural town; the greater part of the 
inhabitants live by agriculture; fo that eafe and abundance 
univerfally reign in it." He also speaks of the "vaft 
meadows covered with herds of cattle of an enormous 
size." 2 During early years, the fields fit for cultivation 
were limited. They had a large amount of provender to 
provide for their cattle in winter. Many buildings were 
required for shelter. This was surely an arduous task for 
the hardiest English yeoman. The town's orders show, 
also, that they needed many fences. Their yards and 
gardens were enclosed with paling. This was made of 
stakes driven into the earth, and fastened to one or more 
horizontal rails. Pales were from three to six feet in length, 
according to their use. They also fenced their cornfields 
and meadows, often to no purpose, as frequent suits for 
damages prove. On the side toward the town they fenced 
their pastures. Swine soon became numerous in the settle- 
ment. They were a necessity, but the forefathers were 
almost plagued to death by them. As they were then given 
the freedom of common lands at times, they naturally be- 
came wild. They broke down the fences, and the settlers 
suffered extensive damages. 

If now we can imagine the inhabitants of this settlement 
as busy as bees for some years in these employments, we 
shall see how naturally the town grew. Their earliest 
highways were not laid out by the town. They were de- 

1 Ibid., XIV: 216. 

2 New Travels in America, by J. P. Brissot de Warville, pp. 72, 73. 



158 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

termined by the topography of the land and the activities of 
the inhabitants. After their house-lots were located, the 
town soon found out where the people wanted to go. It 
made there a highway, the lines of which were established 
in due time. The way a settler found most convenient in 
reaching his employment was followed by others, until it 
became a road. To the woods he went for his timber; to 
the falls for stone; to the kiln for clay or brick; to the 
meadow for hay; to the pasture with his cows; to the mill 
with his corn; to the mouth of the meadow creek for his 
boat to cross the river, and to Windsor or Wethersfield to 
see his friends. Others did the same. Soon roads were 
made, which survive to this day as the city's streets. It is 
significant that no highways now cross Main Street east and 
west. The eastern portion of Pearl Street was laid out 
where it is, because it was a convenient route to the mill. 
The same is true of all early highways. Hence their roads 
came to be named according to their destination, or the 
places and residences that were thus connected. Some- 
times these occur in reverse order in the records. The 
road from the Meeting House to the Mill was through 
Pearl, Trumbull, Jewell and Ford streets. It was also 
named "Town to the Mill" and "Old Mill to the Meeting 
House." The eastern end was sometimes designated as 
"Seth Grant's to the Meeting House." The extension 
farther west had destinations according to the development 
of the settlement — "to the Ox Pasture," "to the Country," 
"to the Middle Ox Pasture," "to the Woods," "to the 
Little River" and "to the Commons." After the new mill 
had been erected at the falls, the road from it westward 
also received the ambiguous designation "Mill to the Ox 
Pasture." Centinel Hill was another place of departure 
for highways. They ran thence "to the Cow Pasture," 
"to the Neck," "to the North Meadow" and "to Seth 
Grant's." The latter was usually named "Seth Grant's 
to Centinel Hill," now Trumbull Street, from Pearl north- 
ward. In time, Centinel Hill came to be called "Pound 
Hill," and the names changed accordingly. The entire 
length of this highway was named "Little River to Centinel 
Hill," or, "Thomas Stanton's to Centinel Hill." John 



GROWTH OF THE TOWN 159 

Steele lived where the Travelers Insurance Company- 
building is. When he recorded his lot, he bounded it on 
the west by "the hyway Leading from the olid Palifado 
Now fro the mell to the meeting houfe." As the bridge 
became a conspicuous landmark, this street received the 
names "Bridge to the Meeting House," or "Bridge to 
Pound Hill." Another place of departure was George 
Steele's house, at the corner of Washington Street and 
Capitol Avenue. Hence we have the name, " George Steele's 
to the Mill," applied to the road along Trinity Street, turn- 
ing then north-west around Capitol Hill to the site of the 
upper mills. The road from his house southeast joined 
Buckingham Street near the South Church and continued 
eastward. It was the highway from "George Steele's to 
the South Meadow." The section east of Main Street was 
also named "Giles Smith's to William Gibbons'." The road 
from "George Steele's to the Great Swamp" led through 
Lafayette Street, joining Washington Street farther south. 
One of their longest highways started at the upper mills and 
went eastward through Elm and Sheldon streets. There 
was a similar road along the north side of the Little River, 
now Arch and Wells streets. That portion of Main Street 
south of the river was called the "Road to Wethersfield" 
and the "Road to the Ox Pasture." The town, bridge or 
river, were sometimes its place of departure, and southward 
from Buckingham Street, the home of John Moody. There 
is, indeed, scarcely a highway that had not several names 
applied to it during early years. These continued in use 
for a long time in the land records. Probably in conversa- 
tion all roads were designated according to their destina- 
tion. In the course of time, however, the town's streets 
came to be named after some feature or the location. It 
was convenient to speak of "the broad hyway." So their 
principal thoroughfare became "Broad Street," just as, 
at a later time, "the main street" became "Main Street." 
Trumbull Street was at first called "the back street," and 
then "Back Street." Other town streets were conveniently 
spoken of as the road that passed the home of some well- 
known resident. This was a natural origin of the custom 
of naming streets after certain citizens. As the town-plot 



160 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

became more clearly defined, highways were said to lead 
from the town to some suburban place or neighboring 
town. In 1G79, the General Court ordered that roads from 
plantation to plantation "shall be reputed the country 
roades or King's highway." 1 For this reason, probably, 
the road from the Meeting House to the Little Meadow 
came to be named "King Street." Main Street north of 
the square was then called "Queen Street." The cart 
tracks in these ancient highways were not necessarily 
straight for any considerable distance. The land reserved 
for them was of liberal width, and the roadway might be 
made in any part of them according to the driver's con- 
venience. 

The growth of a town is usually revealed in the condition 
of its highways. Imagine the appearance of Main Street 
as it must have been in 1640 — a wide swath that the ax 
had cut through the forest, with a road finding its way from 
end to end, over swales and around stumps. The improve- 
ment of such roads was an early public service. In 1640 it 
was ordered that every man fit for service should work on 
them one day, magistrates and church officers excepted. The 
two highway surveyors were empowered, in 1641, to call 
out the train-bands and teams for two days; and he who 
refused to respond was to be reported to the Particular 
Court. Two years later another call was made, to work 
on the highway from the bridge to the meeting-house, 
"vntell the worck be finished." That year, also, the eight 
residents on the north bank of the Little River were freed 
from common work on the roads, on condition that within 
that time they made our present Wells Street "pasabell 
with loden carttes," at their own charges. It was years 
before the settlers realized how much work was necessary 
on their highways. They then vested in the townsmen 
extraordinary powers to compel such public service. In 
1760 the General Assembly granted the privilege of a 
lottery to raise £300, "for the repairing the main streets in 
the town of Hartford." 2 

One of their early public works was the construction of 
causeways. These were paths made of stones, logs and earth, 

1 Conn. Col. Rec., Ill: 30. • Ibid., XI: 411. 



GROWTH OF THE TOWN 161 

raised above the natural level of the highway, to afford a 
dry passage for the feet. In England they were then in 
general use. The earliest was constructed in Hartford in 
1644. It was along Main Street, for it is described as leading 
"to the metting hous and vp the lane to the pound by tho 
Spenser." The pound was west, and Thomas Spencer's 
house north of Centinel Hill. Probably others were soon 
built, for, in 1646, it was forbidden, under penalty of six 
pence, to ride a horse on any causeway that led to the meet- 
ing-house, except to cross it. Two years later, the driving 
of cattle or carts upon any of the "Causyes that Lead from 
any parte of the Towne to the meeting howse" was prohib- 
ited. That year, also, it was ordered that such causeways 
be constructed on the South-side, from George Steele's, 
Thomas Hosmer's and Mrs. Wyllys's, to the bridge over 
Little River; and, on the North-side, from William Phillips's, 
William Kelsey's and William Westwood's, to the meeting- 
house. These paths, with those supposed to have been 
built earlier, would have served most of the inhabitants. 
Each side was to do its own work; and if either failed to 
complete the work on or before the last day of September, 
it was to pay forty shillings to the other side. This was 
surely a friendly rivalry in preparing the way of the Lord. 
Such facts show us the early town in its rural simplicity. 
The value of sidewalks as now constructed, was not recog- 
nized for more than a century. In 1758, the streets being 
"very miry at times, unfit for walking on foot," the efforts 
of divers persons to make foot walks, probably in front of 
their own homes, were encouraged by the town, and their 
walks protected from misuse by horses, very much as the 
causeways had been in 1646. 1 

Such details help us to understand how encroachments 
upon their highways came to pass. In those early times 
they had no thought of future city streets. An old English 
town would better illustrate their ideal. Highways that 
were so little regarded by the public naturally became the 
prey of abutting owners. They pushed out their fences to 
suit themselves, gradually taking in land that was not 
occupied by the roadway. This was encouraged by the 

1 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 178. 



162 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

town's grants of land in the highways and the meeting- 
house yard. In 1644, John Talcott was given liberty to set 
a cart house in front of his home lot. Others, from time to 
time, received similar locations for shops. Being so liberal 
in such matters, the town would hardly notice the encroach- 
ment of a fence. Thus, like the crowd viewing a procession, 
others moved out to get in line. The width of Main Street 
was in this way diminished in places, especially north of 
the square. That the tenants of the Ancient Burying 
Ground could not follow the custom is doubtless the reason 
for the width of the street in front of it. In 1683, the town 
took action to prevent encroachments. The General 
Assembly also did the same in 1724. * The early conditions 
could not be restored in the town's main streets. The 
people had slumbered so long that the rights of abutting 
owners had been secured, and many practical difficulties 
hindered reform. 

It is evident that the settlers needed pounds from the 
first. Their contention with the Dutch made one impera- 
tive on the South-side. On December 26, 1639, it was 
"ordrd that ther shalbe two pounds made w th 6 Rayls 40 
foote square: one on the one syd the River the other on the 
other side, to be Reddy by Aprell." A pound was also 
established early at Hockanum; but it was apparently given 
up and the land allotted. Later, two were located else- 
where. 2 The South-side pound was near the southeast 
corner of Andrew Bacon's house-lot, on the road from 
George Steele's to the South Meadow. 3 The North-side 
pound was northwest of Centinel Hill, near the corner of 
Thomas Burr's lot. In 1742, the selectmen were authorized 
to exchange this tract with Thomas Burr, Jr., and a new 
pound was established near-by on the west side of Trumbull 
Street. 4 

The changes of a century in the neighborhood of Centinel 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, \l: 449,450; VII: 34. 

2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 46-48, 82, 189; Original Distribution, p. 458; Good- 
win's Hiit. of East Hartford, p. 70. 

3 Original Distribution, p. 3G7; Hartford Land Records, 1: 19, 69; 5: 310; 8: 
46, etc. 

* Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 117, 162, 256; Hartford Land Records, 
7: 112, 356, 357. 



GROWTH OF THE TOWN 163 

Hill, will serve to illustrate the process of development that 
was carried on in all parts of the settlement. The hill itself 
was an elongated elevation, with its summit a little west of 
the present corner where Main Street turns to the northwest. 
On the theory that civilization reduces hills and fills up 
valleys, though rarely to a level, the topographical map of 
Hartford made in 1892, gives the base of this hill in its 
contour lines. The rise began as far south as Church Street 
and extended in a curve to the northwest, near Trumbull. 
The design of the pioneers, apparently, was to have this 
hill to command the neck on the north, and, at the southern 
end of a broad highway, the palisado to command the Little 
River. It was a splendid location for their plantation. 
Perhaps signals could once be exchanged between the hill 
and the South Green, as tradition relates. On the east 
side of the hill the slope descended abruptly into a swale 
or ravine. The late Dr. Gurdon W. Russell, who had an 
intimate acquaintance with the neighborhood, once pointed 
out a spot, in Main Street at the head of Morgan, where he 
saw in an excavation, twelve or fifteen feet below the present 
grade, a large log. His conclusion was as above stated, and 
the records confirm it. In early times there was no road 
on that side of the hill. The house-lots of Goodman and 
Lewis, farther south, were bounded on the west by a high- 
way; but those of Talcott and Elmer had Centinel Hill 
for a western bound. This explains the language of the 
town votes as to the causeway. It went "vp the lane to the 
pound." The road from the meeting-house northward had 
room enough until it came to the hill. Then it was com- 
pelled by the swale on the eastern side to follow the western 
base to the pound, narrowing its width to a "lane." There 
it divided, the western branch leading to the Cow Pasture, 
and the eastern swinging around in front of Thomas Spencer's 
lot to the North Meadow, as shown in Porter's plan. There 
was a chase way up the slope from William West wood's lot, 
between those of Elmer and Ely. Probably there was a 
spring in the road to the meadow. In 1644, the town 
appointed a committee to view "the plase that Nath Elly 
desiers to draw watter in to his lott outt of the highway." 
Perhaps a pioneer's path to the spring grew into a chaseway, 



164 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

which the cattle of Front Street followed to pasture. Its 
modern successor is Morgan Street, laid out in 1788. The 
settlers began at an early date to fill up the swale, naturally 
by grading down the hill. They thus extended their main 
throughfare northward, to connect directly with the road 
to the North Meadow. This improvement covered many 
years. In 1655, the Elmer lot, having passed to Colonel 
John Allyn, was still bounded west by the hill. Ten years 
later, the owner was given "liberty to improve the land 
fro the corner of M r9 Tallcotts ffence to the Chasse lane." 
The inhabitants were forbidden, in 1660, to "digg or cary 
away any earth from Sentinell hill," without the consent of 
Ensign Talcott and John Allyn, under penalty of two shill- 
ings a load. Probably the earth was wanted for filling on the 
east. In 1709, the Allyn lot was bounded west by the high- 
way. As the extent of the hill was decreased, the lane to 
the pound was widened. An open area was thus established. 
Next south of it, was the house-lot originally recorded to 
Mrs. Dorothy Chester. In 1639 her liberty to build upon 
it was extended two years, but it is not known whether she 
ever lived there. It was probably acquired by Richard 
Webb, whose lot bounded it on the south and was included 
in the three and one-half acres that he sold in 1651 to Barthol- 
omew Barnard. This lot was then bounded on the north, 
east and west by highways. For many years thereafter, it 
was the Barnard homestead, around which were gathered 
the homes of some well-known Hartford families of that time. 
It was one of the town's fortified houses in 1689, when there 
was danger from the Indians. The others were the houses 
of Samuel Wyllys on Charter Oak Hill, James Steele at the 
corner of Washington Street, and John Olcott on the Windsor 
Road. 1 At the death of Bartholomew Barnard in 1697, 
his homestead passed to his son Sergeant John Barnard, who, 
in 1734, bequeathed the northwest corner to Jonathan 
Olcott, and the balance to Joseph Olcott. Meanwhile, the 
hill having disappeared, the abutters had extended their 
bounds northward. In 1756, Colonel Samuel Talcott 
petitioned the town for a small piece of land "on the Hill," 
north of Joseph Olcott's house "at the Turn of the High- 

1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 228. 



GROWTH OF THE TOWN 165 

way," to set a building upon "for a shop or Ware Houfe." 
At the same time, Isaac Pratt asked for land at this place 
for a blacksmith shop. The former purchased, however, 
part of the Olcott lot. He erected there the warehouse, 
which is still standing a short distance back from the street. 
This property he conveyed, in 1770, to his son Samuel 
Talcott. It then had upon it "a Shop or Store Houfe." 
Near the old pound Thomas Burr had received in 1695, a 
grant "oute of y e highway aganst his house." In this shop 
his son, Thomas, afterwards plied his trade as a shoemaker. 
Probably there were, later, other small shops in that neigh- 
borhood, which ultimately furthered the diminution of the 
open area. In 1760, the old home where the Barnards and 
Olcotts had lived, with its barn and orchard, passed out of 
Joseph Olcott's hands, and, in 1763, it was bought by 
Captain Jonathan Wadsworth. 1 He also leased the original 
lot of John Hollo way, the blacksmith. This was across the 
street, and had been an early bequest to the First Church. 
Thus the site of Centinel Hill was on its way to be divided 
up and put to the uses of trade, as seen to-day. 

The process of transformation illustrated in this locality 
was carried on everywhere within the settlement. Swales, 
mudholes and ponds were filled up. There were once two 
ponds a little west of Main Street and south of Centinel Hill. 
They were called "Barnard's Ponds," or "Day's Ponds." 
In 1733, an attempt was made to drain them across Main 
Street, to which the town objected. 2 Within the memory of 
recent inhabitants, all the land at the lower end of Pearl 
and Asylum streets was low and wet. Near High Street, 
there was a hill where bricks were once made. North of 
the square, near Market Street, the houses once stood on a 
considerable elevation. This was also the case on the north 
side of Asylum Street. Underneath the surface of the 
present city, with its builded squares, level pavements and 
easy grades, there are unmistakable signs, sometimes re- 
vealed in excavations, of that rough and wooded tract upon 
which the early settlers labored to bring forth better things. 

1 Hartford Land Records, 10: 220, 339, 340. 

2 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 82. 



CHAPTER XI 
ALONG THE GREAT RIVER 

On February 21, 1636-7, the settlement the forefathers had 
called "Newe Towne" was formally named by the General 
Court, "Harteford Towne." The reason assigned for this 
action in the colonial records is the commendable practice 
of giving to their new plantations the names of "some 
Citties and Townes in England, thereby intending to keep 
vp and leaue to posterity the memorial of seuerall places of 
note there, as Boston, Hartford, Windsor." * The former 
residence of Rev. Thomas Hooker not being of sufficient note, 
the birthplace of Rev. Samuel Stone was naturally suggested. 
This historical relationship to one of the famous cities of 
England, is now expressed in the seal of the City of Hart- 
ford — "Ar. An American Hart proper, fording a stream, 
trippant, in fess: in a Landskip, in middle base, a Grape 
Vine bearing fruit, naissant from a strip of earth — all 
proper. Crest. An American Eagle proper, displayed. 
Motto. Post Nubila Phoebus." The early purpose of the 
town's founders had died out, however, when, in 1785, 
Colonel Samuel Wyllys, alderman, and John Trumbull, 
Esq., councilman, reported a device for the seal of the newly 
incorporated city. The year before, a strange craft had 
appeared on the river. It consisted of two flat-boats lashed 
together side by side, with a platform on top, upon which 
circling horses created power for paddle-wheels on each side. 2 
The year following, John Fitch won his success with the 
steamboat at Philadelphia. He is said to have experi- 
mented on the Connecticut River earlier. A new era in 
Hartford's commercial life was at hand. 3 Projects were 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 313; The Hartford Courant, Jan. 8, 1895, Dec. 28, 1906, 
and April 27, 1907. 

2 The Connecticut Courant, July 13, 1784. 

3 "The Navigation of the Connecticut River," by Wm. De Loss Love, in Proc. 
of the Am. Antiq. Soc, April, 1903. 




Coat of Arms, after the City's Seal 
Adopted in 1852 




The First Seal of the 
City of Hartford, 1785 



ALONG THE GREAT RIVER 167 

being discussed to deepen the river channel, and were, later, 
realized. The community was enthusiastic with a revived 
interest in trade, which many hoped to extend to foreign 
ports. The day of the Great River that had tarried so long 
had come. Thus it happened that the above committee 
reported as follows: "Connecticut River, represented by 
the figure of an Old man crowned with Rushes, seated against 
a Rock, holding an Urn, with a Stream flowing from it; at 
his feet a net, and fish peculiar to the River lying by it, with 
Barrels and Bales; over his head an Oak growing out of a 
Cleft in the Rock, and round the whole these words, 'Sig- 
illum Civitatis Hartfordiensis.'" l 

There is no more appropriate device in which to sym- 
bolize the sources of Hartford's early development than this 
first seal. It sets forth the indebtedness of the town to 
the Connecticut River. That was the great highway to 
their settlement from the outside world. To it, they com- 
mitted many a venture for distant ports. It provided their 
tables, in season, with the choicest fish. It fertilized their 
meadows, and it brought to their homes many coveted 
luxuries. Thus it was the main artery of their early life. 

In his plan of Hartford in 1640, Porter located the western 
bank of the river some distance east of the same in 1824. 
He evidently thought it had been worn away in the course 
of two centuries. This is true. The main reason for it 
was the gradual closing of the channel eastward of two 
islands lying along the opposite bank. Among the allot- 
ments, there was granted to Thomas Bird "an Hand 
Lying Nere the Eaft Side of the grett Riuer ouer againft the 
Landding plac Contayn by Eftima fortenne acres be it more 
or les Abutting on the Grett Riuer whare the brim of it was 
at a ordanary watter in the yeare one thoufand Six hundreth 
forty & fower." In 1659, the town appointed a committee 
"to veiw Goodman Birds Island & Stake it out to him." 
Nothing was done and, in 1660, another committee was 
named to "apoynt Thomas burd the bounds of his Hand 
ouer against the town." The necessity for settling its 
bounds indicates that there was even then a swale between 
it and the main land. On May 3, 1660, Bird sold this island 

1 Common Council Records, A, p. 16. 



168 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

to Jonathan Gilbert, among whose lands it is described as 
lying "ouer against y e Comon landing place" and abutting 
"on y e great riuer weft on y e dutch Island & on y e mead 
lotts East, & against the litle riuers mouth Sow th ." Gil- 
bert bought the Dutch island the same year. It was the 
island of two acres, "ouer againft y e Sow th end of y e litle mea- 
dow," that had been sequestered in 1654. The meadow 
lots east of it were owned, in 1673, by John Crow, who 
declared in a document that he would not claim any land 
west of his mere stones, which "Stand & all waves haue Stood 
of [on] the Brow of the Hill or Banck on the ends of my 
[his] lotts, by the run of valey that lyeth between my [his] 
Sayd meadow lotts, & that which was formerly Caled the 
dutch Island." 1 It seems, therefore, that these islands were 
then disappearing into the mainland. In 1640, there was 
doubtless a large flow of water east of them, and, in some 
distant past, the channel may have been farther east. 
These islands remained in posession of the Gilbert family for 
some years. 2 In 1709 the larger island passed to Samuel 
Howard. They can now be traced by the contour lines. 

As the channel on the east became closed, the force of the 
current was expended on the western bank and gradually 
wore it away. The total area of the Little Meadow, however, 
was not greatly lessened. Most of the diminution was east 
of the North Meadow creek and north of the landing place, 
where there was a strip of unallotted land. In 1655 it is 
described as "an island." At its northern limit was the 
upper mouth of the creek, for that stream bounded the 
southernmost lot of the North Meadow on the west and 
south. 3 The Little Meadow lots, abutting east on the 
creek, were protected, therefore, by the strip of town land, 
part of which was gradually worn away. In the course of 
improvements, the creek's lower mouth was closed and the 
bed filled in, thus securing to the town for public uses the 
land along the river. In 1773, the General Assembly granted 
a petition for a lottery to raise funds for the protection of 

1 Original Distribution, p. 391. 

2 Hartford Land Records, 1: 50,401,520; i: 19; Manwaring's Hartford Probate 
Records, I: 307; State Archives: Private Controversies, II: 130. 

5 Original Distribution, p. 104. 



ALONG THE GREAT RIVER 169 

this bank. Wharves built there later were called the 
"Lottery Wharves." It was stated in the memorial that 
the landing-place had been "much enlarged and made very 
convenient, but was in danger of being ruined by the river's 
current, unless defended by public aid. 1 A committee, 
appointed by the city in 1792 to ascertain what land near 
the landing was public property, reported that, since 1677, 
the river's bank had been worn away for a considerable dis- 
tance. 2 The deeds indicate that there was along the river, 
in early times, some swamp land. This was doubtless 
washed away and the depth of water increased. 

At the landing-place where there was a substratum of 
rock, they found a convenient locality for most of their 
early river traffic. This was an important center for two 
centuries. Rev. Thomas Hooker may have foreseen the high 
value of land in the neighborhood when he acquired here 
four acres. His eastern bound was the creek, the landing- 
place and the highway to it, now Kilbourn Street. This 
land descended in the family for several generations. Timo- 
thy Stanley owned the triangle south of this, at the corner of 
Kilbourn and Front streets. It remained in the possession 
of his family for more than a century. In 1742 it passed to 
Timothy Bigelow. The Road to the Ferry was bisected 
by another from the south. The lot east of this abutting 
on the river, afforded a desirable site for their early ware- 
houses. It comprised one acre. Its original owner was 
Thomas Scott. In 1652, his heirs sold it, with the home- 
lot, to Thomas Cadwell. 3 South of it, along the river, 
John Steele owned two acres, which he sold to William 
Pantry. To this, other lots were added, and his grandson, 
John Pantry, owned here twenty-five acres. This tract 
was afterwards called "Pantry Jones' Pasture." Thomas 
Cadwell made an exchange of land with the town in 1669. 
It thus secured for public uses the land along the river. 
The remainder of Cadwell's lot descended to Esther Cadwell. 
She married Caleb Bull, and their heirs inherited it. Shortly 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, XIV: 118, 119. 

2 Common Council Records, A. 2, p. 65. 

3 Original Distribution, pp. 62, 476-479; Common Council Records, A. 2, pp. 
59 ff. 



170 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

after Thomas Cadwell acquired this lot, he erected upon it 
a warehouse. It stood where the store of Thomas Bull was 
located in 1792. As he is believed to have been conducting 
a private ferry in 1652, he may have used this warehouse in 
connection with that venture. The account book of John 
Talcott shows that Cadwell's warehouse was used by the 
Colony during King Philip's War, probably for the storage 
of supplies. In 1685 he sold it to Nathaniel Stanley, from 
whom it passed to Nathaniel Hooker. The latter's son 
Nathaniel, built there a new warehouse, the frame of which 
survived in Thomas Bull's store. The town granted liberty, 
in 1653, to Jonathan Gilbert to set up a warehouse east of 
the Hooker lot, provided he had the consent of Mrs. Hooker. 
This site was in the highway west of the landing. He 
erected the building at once. Very likely he here stored the 
corn he collected in 1654 for the train-band. He had charge 
of the military stores for some years. His warehouse was a 
two-story building. It had a cellar underneath it and a 
staircase leading to the second floor. This building was 
standing fifty years later. After Gilbert's death in 1682, his 
son Samuel sold the north end to Thomas Thornton, and 
the south end he sold in 1693 to Thomas Hooker, subject to 
the life use of Widow Mary Gilbert. The town also granted 
to Jonathan Gilbert, in 1676, "Twenty six Foot of bredth in 
land by the great riuer & Forty foot in length the former 
bredth westward to be to him & his heirs forever." The 
condition was that he and his heirs should maintain the 
highway thither. This location was next south of the land- 
ing, at the north end of the Scott-Cad well lot. Here he 
erected a second warehouse, which he also owned at his death. 
In 1683, this land was forfeited to the town because his 
heirs refused to keep in repair the highway. Later, this 
warehouse passed to William Gibbon; in 1696, to William 
Caddy; in 1698, to William Whiting, and, in 1725, to John 
Austin. The last-named owner petitioned, in 1736, for 
liberty to build an addition at the west end, it being then 
the northernmost warehouse on the bank of the river. In 
1761, it was owned by John Ellery. This was the ware- 
house referred to in 1678, when a committee of- the town 
recommended that the "Land on the North side of M r 



ALONG THE GREAT RIVER 171 

gillberts warehouse: Betwene the great Riuer [and the] 
brew of the Little meadow Hill where the ffence Now stands 
to the mouth of the Little Riuer [North Meadow Creek] bee 
and Remayne for a Common Landing place which wee Judg 
Nessesary for the publick." l The same year the above- 
named strip of land along the river was recorded to the town. 2 
We have thus a fairly complete plan of the landing-place 
and its environs in 1678. It continued for years, with few 
changes, except the erection of other warehouses. We 
have only to picture to ourselves a highway leading north- 
east from Front Street to the river, on the south side of 
the creek's mouth. When this channel was closed and the 
bed filled, the landing-place was enlarged. Along the river 
south of it, was the row of early warehouses. The first 
one, erected by Jonathan Gilbert, was on the west facing 
the landing. There was evidently a swale parallel with 
the river. West of it, the grade ascended to the Little 
Meadow Hill. In 1911, some workmen, who were driving 
the intercepter tunnel at the foot of Kilbourn Street, found 
at about low-water level, three large pine logs laid parallel 
east and west, four feet apart, with cross pieces upon them. 
An imaginative writer suggested the discovery of Hooker's 
raft. Probably it was the remains of an early causeway 
laid across the above swale, by which the settlers reached 
the landing-place. This approach to the river had become 
important in 1678. From that time, the landing-place 
entered upon an era of development that only reached its 
climax after the revival of commerce in the early years of the 
city's life. 

Concerning the other early warehouses in the row at the 
landing, the records give further information. George 
Gardner received from the town, in 1674, one rod square, 
where he erected a warehouse. The report of 1792 states 
that his son, Ebenezer Gardner, gave this to Caleb Stanley. 
Probably it was on or near the site granted to the latter. In 
1678, a grant twenty feet square was made to Ensign Na- 
thaniel Stanley for the same purpose. His site was between 
Cad well's and the landing. Then, in 1683, a tract sixteen 
feet wide and twenty -four feet long at the north end of Cad- 

1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 192. 2 Ibid., I: 184, 190. 



172 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

well's warehouse, was given to Caleb Stanley. It descended 
to Timothy Stanley, who sold it in 1743 to Captain William 
Tiley. A similar grant was made, in 1685, to Richard 
Edwards, between the warehouses of Caleb and Nathaniel 
Stanley. This year, also, Joseph Wadsworth and Philip 
Lewis received liberty to erect one next to the landing-place. 
North of the landing, Colonel Samuel Talcott erected a 
warehouse, about the middle of the eighteenth century. It 
was on his own land. The creek bed had been filled in 
meanwhile. This warehouse or store was near the mansion- 
house and other buildings, which Colonel Talcott sold in 
1777 to William and Jannet Knox. It passed later to John 
Chenevard. There was another warehouse at the south end 
of the row. It was built on the reserved lot of Thomas 
Cadwell, perhaps by his son Thomas, about 1695, when he 
became the ferryman. In 1719, it is mentioned in the 
inventory of Mathew Cadwell, his successor, as "1 Acre and 
J of Land and the Ware houfe that Stands on it." The 
inventory of his son Mathew in 1723, speaks of it as "the 
Waor hous and fhop and Land one which they ftand." In 
both cases the value was £70. The latter's heirs sold it, in 
1745, to Caleb Bull, Jr., the deed specifying that the ware- 
house had formerly belonged to Mathew Cadwell. 1 In 
buildings then standing on this lot, or afterwards erected, 
Caleb Bull conducted his flaxseed store. All these ware- 
houses would now be considered insignificant, both in size 
and business. They were owned, however, by the most 
prominent merchants of Hartford. It was in this little 
group of buildings that a large part of the river trade of 
colonial times was carried on. In 1792, this public area at 
the landing was laid out, and its courses and measurements 
were recorded. 2 There Thomas K. Brace established later 
his warehouses and his wharf was located. The site is at 
present indicated by the promontory east of the railroad 
tracks, opposite the foot of Kilbourn Street. 

The years following King Philip's War also mark an era 
in the development of the East-side. The committee of 
1678 reported as follows: "Allso we haue ordred a Common 

1 Hartford Land Records, 7: 193. 

2 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 342-345. 



ALONG THE GREAT RIVER 173 

Landing place uppon M r Jonathan gillberds Island on the 
east side of the great Riuer where now itt is, to be ffower 
rods wide uppon the Banck next the Riuer." Thence they 
laid out a highway across the island, down the bank where 
the carts had "allready made a passage," and eastward to 
the upland. 1 This road was obliged to cross swamp land 
and swales, over which causeways were built. A road here 
was already in use and connected with a north and south 
road, laid out in 1640 along the meadow hill. In 1670, 
the country road, now Main Street, was established by order 
of the General Court. 2 In consideration, the proprietors 
were granted and took twenty rods eastward of their three- 
mile lots. Other roads followed. Saw-mills were built on 
the Hockanum, or Saw Mill River. 3 Eligible locations for 
East-side farms were chosen, and residents there increased. 
Among early settlers the following were the most prominent 
families: Bidwell, Burnham, Forbes, Goodwin, Hills, 
Olcott, Olmsted, Pitkin, Porter, Risley, Spencer and Wil- 
liams. Thus began an era during which the East-side at- 
tained great prosperity. 4 

The ferry across the river was at first, and for many years 
so far as known, a private enterprise. In 1641, the General 
Court took notice of Windsor's ferry and encouraged that 
town to provide a boat for its use, by allowing a charge for 
passengers. 5 This was Bissell's old ferry, where travellers 
crossed in going to the Bay. It is quite improbable that 
Hartford was without similar accommodations. Thomas 
Cadwell seems most likely to have been this early ferryman, 
and possibly before him, Edward Stebbins, who lived 
nearest the landing, did such service. After the distribution 
of East-side meadow lots, boats must have been constructed 
of sufficient size for farming use. Animals were trans- 
ported across and pastured in the meadows. At a later 
date, the owners of East-side lots owned such a boat in 
common, as did the ''Proprietors of the North Meadow." 

1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 185, 190, 191; Hartford Land Records, 1: 401, 520. 

2 Conn. Col. Rec, II: 133. 

3 Original Distribution, p. 553; Hartford Land Records, 1: 101; 4: 203, 369; 
5: 459; Conn. Col. Rec, I: 262; II: 178; III: 218, 219. 

4 See East Hartford: its History and Traditions, by Joseph O. Goodwin. 

5 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 71. 



174 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

It was called a "great boat." Very likely the town had 
such a boat in early times. In 1715, the town's boat was 
kept at a certain place for the use of inhabitants. 1 There 
was also one on the East-side. At the town meeting, 
December 22, 1681, the convenience and necessity of having 
a public ferry at Hartford was considered. A committee 
was appointed to agree with a suitable person to keep the 
same for seven years. Thomas Cadwell was the man 
selected. As his warehouse was at the landing, and his 
house, after 1652, at the southwest corner of State and 
Front streets, this service would have been convenient for 
him. His agreement, dated March 31, 1682, states that 
he was "to maintaine a suffitiant Boate ffor the passaige 
of Horse and man: and a Connoe good and suffitiant to 
Carry ouer single persons." 2 The fares were: Hartford 
residents, man Id., horse and man, 3d. in silver, and double 
fare if in other pay, non-residents or after dark. Thomas 
Cadwell was thus the lessee of the ferry privilege, though 
not necessarily the ferryman. He agreed that it should 
be "carefully attended." He died in 1694. His widow, 
Elizabeth Cadwell, succeeded him for one year and then 
his son Thomas. Probably Mathew Cadwell was the next 
ferryman. He died in 1719 and was succeeded by his 
widow, Abigail Cadwell, and her son Mathew. The rent 
was then £10 a year. This son was probably the ferry- 
man in 1723, when he died. His inventory includes the 
"Cart Booat with the Chain fastened to it," and the "hors 
booat" and chain. Thus one family conducted this ferry 
for at least thirty-seven years. Daniel Messenger bought 
a lot near the landing in 1724, and soon afterward built a 
house there, being persuaded to do so, he claimed, in the 
expectation of securing the lease of the ferry. He received 
the appointment in 1726, and probably in 1727, paying 
therefor £13. The privilege was then sold to the highest 
bidder. Daniel Messenger was aggrieved, as he had pro- 
vided "boats, scows and other vessels." He appealed to 
the General Assembly for redress, agreeing to take the 
franchise for ten years, to carry the members free when on 

1 Hartford Toum Votes, I: 318; MS. Vol. II: 21. 

2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 197, 198. 



ALONG THE GREAT RIVER 175 

public business, and to pay each year one-tenth of the 
expense of erecting the Little River bridge. 1 A contract 
had been made, however, with the successful bidder, Charles, 
the son of Richard Burnham, for one year. These short 
term leases were due to the town's hope of securing a charter 
for the ferry. It petitioned for one in 1727, and several 
times later, without success. The fares were changed from 
time to time, and the members of the General Assembly, 
court officials and town inhabitants were not unwilling to 
profit by the ferryman's labor. 2 His remuneration, however, 
was not derived so much from his fares as from the license 
to sell liquors, which it had become the custom to grant 
him. That was the reason for Daniel Messenger's liberal 
offer. In 1728, being then a "tavern-keeper," he sold his 
property and removed elsewhere. The next ferryman of 
record was Timothy Bigelow, who was the lessee in 1736. 
He bought of Daniel Edwards in 1742, the land on the 
northeast corner of Front and Kilbourn streets, and estab- 
lished there his home. He also kept a tavern. Nathaniel 
Pease, ferryman in 1746, petitioned for a license. Timothy 
Bigelow died in 1747. His son Benjamin was later ferry- 
man and host. During his term, in 1757, a project was 
started to have two ferries at Hartford. When he mem- 
orialized the General Assembly in 1759 on the subject, he 
stated that another place lower down on the river had re- 
cently been used as a landing. He admitted the need of 
two boats and declared that he was willing to keep two, 
provided the ferry was established at the ancient ferry 
place and no competition was allowed. 3 This plan was 
carried out, but no monopoly was granted. Benjamin 
Bigelow continued as ferryman for some years, but much 
of the time after 1757 there was a competing ferry. In 
1769, the town committee was authorized to make a lease 
for ten years, the ferryman to have liberty to land his boats 
anywhere between Mr. Knox's house, north of the ancient 
landing-place, and Jones's south wharf, which was south 

1 State Archives: Travel, I: 157, 171, 173. 

* Ibid., I: 194,281; Conn. Col. flee, IV: 156,248,332,366; VII: 257; Hart- 
ford Town Votes, I: 241, 242. 

» Conn. Col. flee, XI: 138, 282. 



176 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

of the foot of the present Ferry Street, the lower landing- 
place of later times. 1 In this lease, the inhabitants were 
to have free passage to meetings and when on public busi- 
ness. This would have meant much more before 1694, when 
an ecclesiastical society was formed on the East-side. In 
earlier times there was great disorder in conveying church- 
goers across the river. The most was made of this fact in 
the East-side petitions for a separate organization. The 
rent of the ferry was put to various public uses, such as 
procuring firewood for the schools and repairing the bridges. 
In 1719, the inhabitants of West Farms were authorized to 
expend £9 of the ferry rent in buying land for a burial 
ground. 2 Across the river by the ferry, there was a large 
amount of travel during the Revolutionary War. Several 
boats were in use and, some of the time, two ferries, as in 
later times. This travel was somewhat relieved, however, 
by ferries above and below the town. 3 After the incor- 
poration of the city, these augmented needs urged the con- 
struction of a bridge. 4 

The earliest wharf of which we have any knowledge, was 
that probably built by Samuel the son of Thomas Thorn- 
ton, who owned the north half of the old Gilbert warehouse. 
In 1702, the town appointed a committee, "to veiw a Small 
peice of Land that Sam 11 Thornton desires to wharfe on & 
lay out the same to him if it prove not predudiciall to the 
town he to Enjoy the Same as Long as the town Shall see 
Cause." The next year, he inherited from his father "part 
of the warehouse at the Common Landing Place." Prob- 
ably this wharf adjoined the warehouse on the north side. 
It might have been within the mouth of the creek. We do 
not note any other wharves for many years. The public 
landing was used by river merchants. Vessels frequently 
anchored in the stream, and customers went out to them 
in boats, the traffic being conducted on the decks. W 7 ith 

1 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 179, 185, 192, 231. 

1 Ibid., MS. Vol. II: 13. 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, V: 354; VI: 322; State Archives: Travel, I: 138, 139, 189. 
See "Ferries in Early Days" in The Hartford Times, Sept. 29, 1908; July 2, 1909; 
Aug. 23, 1910. 

4 Memorial Hist, of Hartford County, I: 369-371; Goodwin's East Hartford, 
pp. 195-197; Wright's Crossing the Connecticut, pp. 5 ff. 



ALONG THE GREAT RIVER 177 

the revival of trade after the Revolutionary War, wharves 
multiplied very rapidly. Solomon Porter's survey of 1790 
notes those of Jones, Bull and Olcott in front of the old 
warehouses. In 1824, there were twenty between Dutch 
Point and Morgan's bridge. The Connecticut River was 
then at the height of its commercial renown. 

The impression prevails quite generally that the eastern 
section of Hartford was populous and busy with mercantile 
life during colonial times. Those conditions were not 
brought about until the nineteenth century, after many 
years of development. One who walked through Front 
Street, from the fordway at Little River northward in 1775, 
saw little to suggest its appearance fifty years later. There 
were some scattered homesteads on the west side of the 
street, with barns, gardens and orchards. On the east side, 
the entire southern portion was a meadow that had long 
been known as "Haynes' Pasture." It contained about 
twenty-three acres. At an early date, the Haynes family 
began to gather the original lots into this tract. After the 
Revolutionary War, the owner, John Haynes Lord, yielded 
to the pressure of business interests and sold certain lots. 
Ashbel Wells Jr. erected there a brick store in 1787. He 
made and sold pottery, whence the name Potter's Lane. 
Captain John Chenevard also bought on the Little River 
and established there a wharf. A still-house was near. 
In 1786, General Jeremiah Wadsworth purchased five 
acres, adding to two tracts sold to him in 1783 and 1784 
from the Pantry lot. To him the credit was due for the 
development of commercial interests along that water front. 
Probably the first house erected in this portion of the 
meadow was that of Hannah Watson. She sold two acres 
to Caleb Bull in 1774, with the house where she lived. The 
lot west of this she had deeded to William Watson in 1771. 
When it passed, in 1773, to Asa Benton, it had upon it a 
new house, partly built. North of this, the next house was 
Pantry Jones's, south of Jones Lane. His homestead and 
adjoining pasture occupied a considerable area. It was 
through the southern part of this tract, then owned by his 
son Nathaniel Jones, that lower State Street was opened 
in 1800. In 1783, Pantry Jones sold the northwest corner 



178 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

to Dr. Solomon Smith, who built there a house and store. 
In 1785, it passed to his son Daniel Smith, who sold to John 
Hall, a hardware and drygoods merchant. In 1781, Pantry 
Jones deeded to Barnabas Dean and Company the lot near 
the river, long occupied by their distillery and store. Per- 
haps the latter building was erected earlier by Pantry 
Jones. This firm was formed in 1779. It is said that General 
Nathaniel Greene was a silent partner. Northwest of the 
distillery, there was a blacksmith's shop, known as Ensign's. 
Along Ferry and Kilbourn streets the greater part of the 
business life in this section gathered. In 1775, this was 
mainly in the warehouses by the landing-place. Here, in 
1784, William and George Bull sold, among other articles, 
"fire stoves." They advertised these in 1787 as "Franklin 
stoves." Frederick Bull was located here in 1775. He 
dealt in ironware, kettles and pots. Before 1788, when 
Commerce Street was accepted by the city, there was a 
roadway, which followed its general course, west of the 
warehouses. It was called "Cheapside" — a name applied, 
in 1811, to Main Street, north of State. On the northwest 
corner, where it crossed Jones Lane, Caleb Bull had a red 
house and store. It was leased to Elisha Vibbard and, 
in 1789, sold to him. Here, too, Aaron Bradley, the black- 
smith, was located in 1784. He bought land there in 
1787. The next year he advertised as at the sign of the 
"Horseshoe," No. 3 Cheapside, Jones Street. He also 
invited his patrons to another shop in the North Shipyard 
at the sign of the "Strap and Dead Eye." In 1786, Charles 
Hopkins removed into his brick store in Cheapside. West 
of Bradley's shop John W r atson Jr. purchased a location 
from Caleb Bull in 1787. He had owned before 1782 the 
Normand Morrison warehouse at the landing, which then 
passed to Captain John Chenevard. It was south of one 
belonging to the heirs of Captain Samuel Olcott, and north 
of the store of Captain William Bull. North of these 
buildings there was a lumber yard, owned by Caleb Bull. 
His son James Bull leased the corner of it, in 1790, to J. 
Beckwith for a shop. On the west end of this tract Samuel 
Kilbourn located his house and store in 1775. At the foot 
of Ferry Street was the ferry house built by Pantry Jones, 



M 



w 




ALONG THE GREAT RIVER 179 

and bequeathed in 1794 to his nephew, John Jones. It 
remained to recent times. This was then the Ferry Way, 
called later the "Public Landing." In 1775 the old landing 
was still in use — and a busy place it was during the Revolu- 
tionary War. Just north of it, was the Knox Tavern. 
William Knox married Jannet, the daughter of Normand 
Morrison, and, after his death, she married John Calder. 
At this tavern they did a thriving business. Revolu- 
tionary prisoners on parole were boarded there. 1 William 
Knox was also the ferryman, and practically in control of 
the situation. In 1783, he advertised to sell grindstones 
there. That would have been an appropriate name for 
the kind of intoxicants that tradition declares he sold at 
his tavern. The stores of Joseph Barrett and Major John 
Caldwell were on the other side of Commerce Street. In 
1770, Blackleach Wells bought a small house on the south- 
east corner. West of these, near the northeast corner of 
Kilbourn and Front streets, Captain John Bigelow had a 
house and store in 1771, and others before him. North of 
this was the Hooker tract, where Daniel Messenger had 
located in 1725. At the beginning of the Revolutionary 
War, the meadow north of Talcott Lane was mostly devoted 
to pasturage. Its early owner was William West wood, 
whose heir was Aaron Cook. Here, in 1756, was "Cook's 
Little Meadow," which was then acquired by Pantry 
Jones, and sold in 1787 to General Wadsworth and others. 
At this time, the Maritime Company bought up this land 
for speculative purposes. John Tiley owned the lot north 
of that above-named. It was called the "Creek lot," and 
was the location of the North Shipyard. In 1787, Joseph 
Toocker, a ship-builder, leased land and built a house on 
the west side of the passway along the river. 2 He was 
doubtless engaged at his trade in the neighboring shipyard, 
where many vessels had formerly been built and continued 
to be for some years. 3 

1 "Major French's Journal," in Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., I: 213, 215. 

2 Boardman's Ancestry of Jane Maria Grecnleaf, pp. 97-100; Hartford Land 
Records, 18: 408, 474. 

3 In 1727, John Tiley, Jr., sold to John Caldwell and John Knowles the 
hull, mast, boom and bowsprit of the sloop Speedwell, seventy-nine tons. — 
Hartford Land Records, 1: 208. 



180 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

This survey from the records gives us in outline a picture 
of the land along the Great River as it appeared at the 
close of the colonial period, with the entrance upon it 
of those activities that eventually transformed it. Early 
engravings show, in some measure, what it became. The 
old ferry, by which farmers from the East-side entered the 
town, gathered trade. Advertisements of 1787, show that 
shop-keepers on both sides of the river, were offering West 
India goods in exchange for butter and cheese. Arriving 
travellers, also, needed an inn and sometimes a horse- 
shoer. The river trade demanded warehouses, and these 
sufficed for colonial times. At length, however, there came 
a new era, and with it another generation of merchants. 
Then the Great River claimed its opportunity. 



CHAPTER XII 
THE BANKS OF THE RIVERET 

The town of Hartford once had in its ancient riveret a great 
natural source of beauty. In the days of the forefathers 
it was a clear and sparkling stream, except in times of 
freshet or flood. DeVries described its appearance in 1639, 
in his reference to "a high woodland out of which comes a 
valley which makes the kill or creek." What a trout 
stream it must have been in those days! It had its deep 
pools and its areas where it could spread out its skirts on 
occasion. Its springtime waters, after tumbling over a 
natural fall, rushed down between high banks, over a rocky 
incline and at last found quietness at the level of the Great 
River. The Dutch traders at once saw the advantage of 
its mouth as a harbor. It was protected from the Con- 
necticut's current by the protruding foot of the Little 
Meadow. There they could entertain the canoes of many 
Indians who came to trade, and their own sloop was largely 
concealed from view. This must have been in those days 
an interesting port. Let us try to imagine two rows of 
settlers' homes, with their out-buildings and yards, one on 
either side of this stream, from the eastern limit of Bushnell 
Park to the river. No old rookeries shut them off from a 
view of their neighbors across the stream — nothing but 
the trees and shrubbery of their front yards. The distance 
was too great to suit lovers, but perhaps some young Lean- 
der swam this Hellespont, or knew a good place to wade 
across. How pleasant it must have been along the riveret's 
banks, to listen at evening's hour to the purling stream, to 
recline underneath the shade on a summer noontime, or to 
sail toy boats down with the current, freighted with loving 
messages for dear old England. Such was life along the 
riveret in the days of the forefathers, and all the early 
residents on its banks passed away with their generation 
before there were any material changes. 



182 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

The formal baptismal name of this stream was the "Little 
River." Sometimes, though rarely, as the boundary be- 
tween the two "sides," the "river" was a sufficient designa- 
tion. In the town votes, as early as 1642, they used the 
diminutive term "riveret," and "rivulet" was favored in 
the land records. Then in the last decade of the century 
when its mills multiplied, it came to be called "Mill River," 
a name especially applied to the main stream. The early 
designation of the south fork was "Hog River," and of the 
north fork "Ox Pasture River." These were so termed 
because of abutting pastures for the animals named. Quite 
recently, but with some fitness, the former title has been 
extended to the entire stream. 

The earliest public service that has been attributed to 
the riveret is turning the wheel of Mathew Allyn's mill. 
Here, for some years, the corn of the forefathers was ground. 
Allyn's first mill was probably built in 1636, soon after the 
arrival of Hooker's company. The site may have been 
chosen in 1635 by the pioneers, or earlier by John Hall. It 
stood on his two-acre mill lot, part of which is the planted 
bank north of the river in West Bushnell Park. The 
western section of the road from the Meeting House to the 
Mill, now Ford and Asylum streets, ran through it, continu- 
ing across Brick-kiln or Gully Brook to the Ox Pasture. 
The entry of this lot was made under the date February 
1639-40, and it is believed just before Allyn abandoned 
his first and completed his second mill. 1 It states that his 
mill was then standing on this lot and that there was "an 
ifland on the fouth west fide of the mill." The northern 
bound was his own ten-acre tract in Westfield, made up 
largely of swamp land, through which the brook flowed 
from the north. The owner thus had a considerable flowage, 
secured by damming the brook, which then entered the riv- 
eret some distance east of the present stepping stones. 
In the author's opinion, Allyn's first mill utilized this water 
privilege and not the riveret. This belief is favored by 
the fact that these adjoining tracts were granted to him by 
the plantation. However, a pen sketch of 1685 notes the 
"place where M r Alyns first mill stood," and it was ap- 

1 Original Distribution, p. 145. 



THE BANKS OF THE RIVERET 183 

parently near the present stepping stones. 1 This mill is 
thought also to have been on the west side of the brook's 
mouth. The mill lot extended westward of this to John 
Skinner's land. 2 This location harmonizes with a town 
vote thought to date in 1637, appointing Thomas Scott 
to "keep in good Repayre the bridg over the bri[ck kiln] 
swam[p] brooke leading to the mill." This first mill was 
hastily erected to meet immediate needs. It was probably 
of the simplest construction of pioneer times, still to be seen 
among the mountaineers of the south. Its shaft was an 
upright timber, with vertical paddle blades morticed in at 
the lower end for a wheel, and the nether mill-stone was 
secured at the upper end of the shaft. Obviously the swift 
current from a mill-pond was most advantageous for such 
a mill. We have no other references to this mill, except that 
in 1644 it was forbidden to ret hemp or flax in the riveret 
below "that place whare M r Aliens mill ded first stand." 3 
In 1639, Mathew Allyn decided to erect a new mill, 
having then very likely improved facilities. About the 
same time, the town conceived the idea of owning its own 
mill. It appointed committees in September of that year 
to "vew for a place to set a mill," and to see what Mr. 
Allyn "hath agaynst seting vp of another mill." A con- 
troversy ensued. It did not, however, deter the miller 
from carrying out his project. Perhaps he was assisted in 
this by John Hall, a man of skill in such construction work. 
He located his second mill on the southwest corner of his 
island. There he made a dam across the riveret, noted in 
the above-named sketch as the "Place where the former 
dam of M r Allyn's mill was." Here he had the advantage 
of the channel between his island and the main land on the 
south, probably used as a mill-race. The plans for this mill 
seem to have been made before his mill lot was recorded, 
for it is stipulated therein that he had a right to dig and 
carry away earth from the bank southwest of his island "for 
the ufe of his mill" — a valuable privilege in constructing 
his dam and levelling up his mill yard. His problem was 
to make a convenient way to this mill from the north side 

1 Slate Archives: Private Controversies, III: 73. 

2 Original Distribution, pp. 145, 309. 3 Hartford Town Votes, I: 75. 



184 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

of the riveret. On January 11, 1640-41, Mr. Allyn promised 
"To macke a waie offer To y e mill so y l good man hall wold 
doe it for 20 s & m* Alin Layd him stufe," and the frag- 
mentary record shows that the erection of a bridge was 
intended. At the same time the town, on its part, voted 
to "make afence Leading To y e mill through m rs spencers 
grownd & giue hir satisfacone for y* ground," evidently for 
a roadway. She was the widow of William Spencer and lived 
just across the riveret west of the mill, where the Sigourney 
mansion is. This plan was carried out. In 1645, her 
second husband, William Edwards, acknowledged the 
receipt of "damages done by the way to the Millne" through 
his home-lot. The approach to this mill from the north 
side was, therefore, by a short highway diverging south- 
ward from the road to the Ox Pasture, and across the 
riveret by a bridge opposite the mill. The way to the 
Armory from Asylum Street now follows the course of this 
highway. During the period when John Steele made his 
entries in the Original Distribution, he distinguished this 
as the "old mill." It had hardly been finished before the 
delayed project for a town mill came to effect, in the erection 
of one at the falls below. The plan provided that it should 
not "preiuduse the mill of the sd m r Mathew Allen by stop- 
ping the water," but the erection of a competing mill re- 
newed the dispute. In 1643 arbitrators were appointed 
to settle these differences. Their success is doubtful. 
Each mill doubtless had its friends and patrons. The 
rivalry continued for some years. After such a pioneer 
outlay as Mathew Allyn had made for the town's benefit, 
he probably felt aggrieved by this competition. May it 
not have been this controversy, rather than any religious 
differences, that was at the root of his trouble with the 
church, for which, in 1644, he was excluded from its fellow- 
ship? He removed to Windsor soon afterwards, and 
few men in the Colony had greater influence, or received 
more honors than he in his after life. 

In 1653, Mathew Allyn deeded his mill lot to his son, 
John Allyn. This entry was made by William Andrews, 
evidently from the earlier record, for, like tnat, he omitted 
the word "west" after naming John Skinner's land, and did 



THE BANKS OF THE RIVERET 185 

not give contemporary abutters. He designates the lot, 
however, as that upon which "a mill stood." From the 
tense of this verb, we infer that this mill had then fallen 
into disuse. It is possible that a freshet had cut across 
through the mill-race, making the island of later times. 
This was long called "Allyn's Island," and later "City 
Island," though it was found in 1841 that the city did not 
own it. 1 On or near this island, one of Mathew Allyn's 
descendants has erected the Corning fountain. The dis- 
use of this mill may also account for the contemporary 
project of the town to enlarge its mill, or build a new one, 
as presently related. It is improbable that this mill was 
ever revived. John Allyn formed a partnership later with 
John Bidwell Jr. in that business, thus establishing the 
"Upper Mills," which survived as "Imlay's Mills" to recent 
times. The lot next south of Allyn's Island originally 
belonged to John Wilcox, from whom it passed to his son-in- 
law Thomas Long. In 1681, John Bidwell bought part of 
this lot. The tract was seventeen rods along the riveret 
and three rods wide, or fifty-one square rods. 2 Thus Allyn 
united his interests with those of Bidwell, the most extensive 
and experienced mill owner of his day. 3 They then erected 
a mill, which eventually grew into a group, where milling 
of various kinds was carried on for years. Their dam was 
located above the former. The testimony of 1685 was that 
"M r Allyn's old mill dam stood much lower than the present 
dam." Joseph Mygatt's project in 1682, to exchange land 
with the town, probably contemplated access to these mills. 
It was for "the conueniancy off a Bridg or highway ouer the 
River," and anticipated "Badger's Road" as laid out in 
1741. 4 The Bidwell interest passed in 1692 to his heirs, 
and, in 1700, Sarah Bidwell sold to John Marsh Jr. one 
moiety in the mills, then being "much out of repair." This 
grantee sold, in 1704, to Joseph and William Whiting, who, 
as heirs of Captain John Allyn in 1696, and by purchase, 
had acquired his half interest. Thus the Whitings became 

1 Common Council Records, Vol. F, pp. 122, 124. 

2 Original Distribution, pp. 461, 462, 526. 

3 Inventory of John Bidwell, 1692; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, 1: 230; 
State Archives: Private Controversies, I: 72 a. 

* Hartford Toivn Votes, I: 201, 212, 224, 231. 



186 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

the sole owners of this property, with the island and mill 
lot. They sold the mills, in 1712, to Benjamin Graham and 
Joseph Mygatt; and these families, with divided interests, 
were associated with them for years. About 1727, Joseph 
Tillotson acquired three-fourths of the grist-mill, with the 
whole of the bolting-mill, the other one-fourth of the grist- 
mill being owned by Richard Seymour, who also had one- 
fourth of the saw-mill and the fulling-mill. Three-fourths 
of the saw-mill were still held by the Graham and Mygatt 
heirs. Then Jonathan Pratt purchased the grist-mill, with 
one-fourth of the saw-mill, which interests he sold, in 1737, 
to Daniel Badger, who also secured, through Thomas 
Andrus in 1741, another fourth of the saw-mill. Badger 
conducted these mills until 1744, and they were commonly 
called "Badger's Mills." He sold, through Jonathan 
Yeomans, to John Ellery, who also bought from Jonathan 
Seymour the one-half of the saw-mill that had passed from 
Isaac Graham through Timothy Andrus and Timothy 
Marsh. Thus the upper mills had a single owner. They 
were then called "Ellery's Mills." During this period rights 
in the dam were usually in proportion to each owner's mill 
interest. The mill yard remained as originally laid out. 
East of it, was a two-acre lot with a dwelling-house, which 
also passed to successive millers. On the north of this lot, 
ran the road to the upper mills, which furnished access to 
them from the South-side. In 1741, a road was laid out from 
the North-side, diverging from Asylum Street and crossing 
the riveret by a bridge near the present structure. It was 
called "Badger's Road." * The mill plant was improved 
during the ownership of John and William Ellery. From 
the latter, John Ledyard secured a half interest, in 1767. 
They and their heirs were in control for many years. In 
1814, Benjamin Wood became the owner and added a 
cotton mill. The property passed from him, through 
Henry Seymour, to Samuel Ledlie in 1817, and he sold, in 
1820, to William H. Imlay, whence the name "Imlay's 
Mills." A picture of them in the possession of the Connecti- 
cut Historical Society, was drawn from the western bank 
of the river, and represents their appearance during the 

1 Ibid., MS. Vol. II: 111, 114. 



THE BANKS OF THE RIVERET 187 

first half of the last century. The history of these mills 
furnishes a good example of the persistence of such business 
enterprises during colonial times. Near the north end of 
the old ford way, a novel foot-bridge was built, in 1828. At 
either end were casks filled with stones, which were spanned 
by a large timber, to which cleats were nailed. This bridge 
was ten feet above the water. 1 It was called "Imlay's 
Bridge," and a sketch of it by Frederick B. Perkins has been 
preserved by the Connecticut Historical Society. The 
bridge at Ford Street was erected in 1850. 

The early project for a town mill was doubtless suggested 
by the greater convenience of one at the falls, and the need 
of a bridge there. In those days, a bridge was a natural 
adjunct to a mill. So the plan of 1639 included both. 2 
It would seem that the committee then appointed, thought 
to settle a disagreement by having two bridges, one near 
the mill and the other near the fordway, to accommodate 
"the lower pt of the Towne." The latter was to be a cart 
bridge, ten feet higher than the great flood of 1 638-9. 3 On 
April 15, 1640, an agreement was recorded for carrying out 
this project. Possibly the lower bridge was built that sea- 
son, as the upper bridge, when erected, was called the 
"New Bridge," but the entire plan was not carried out, 
perhaps for lack of unanimity or the expense. The outcome 
was that, on January 9, 1640-41, liberty was given to 
Edward Hopkins and John Haynes "To sett vp amill & a 
bridg one y e Litell River ofer against y e palesadoe att theare 
owne p r per Charge." The bridge was to be "a strong 
suficientt Cartt Bridg To be Twelfe footte wide bettwene 
y e Rayles w th Turned Ballesters one y e Top." They were 
to be finished before the following winter and to be kept 

1 Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 371; The Hartford Post, Feb. 23, 1884. 

2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 7, 14, 30, 36-38. 

3 "The great flood began on the 5th of March. On the 11th of March it began 
to fall, but by reason of much rain on the 12th day, it rose very high." Mathew 
Grant's Church Record. There was another exceptional flood in May and June, 
1642. In 1683 and 1692, the water rose to 26 feet. On May 1, 1854, the height 
was "25^ Feet above Low water Mark," as stated on the picture of "The Flood 
of 1854," though Geer's Directory gives it as 29 ft. 10 in. In 1801, the height 
was 27 ft. 8 in., which was the highest of record to that date. The water has 
reached 26 ft. or over in 1841, 1843, 1854, 1859, 1862, 1869, and 1896. The most 
damaging freshets on the Little River have not been necessarily in the years of 
great floods on the Connecticut River. 



188 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

in repair four years, when the expenses were to be adjusted. 
The town was to pay £120 toward the enterprise. This 
agreement was signed by Edward Hopkins and the towns- 
men. Probably the work was completed before September 
2, 1641, when Hopkins's "halfe the Myll standing] by the 
New Bridge" was attached. 1 

Leaving the bridge and its successors for later considera- 
tion, we follow the history of the mills located at the falls. 
This first town mill, conveniently distinguished as Hopkins's 
mill, was located on the north bank of the riveret, just 
below the falls. It is true that the palisado was on the north 
side, and a location "over against" it might seem to mean 
across the riveret; but, as there is positive evidence of its 
being on the north side, either a change of site was made, 
or the above phrase was used in an obsolete sense, meaning 
"in front of" the palisado, the entrance to which was, there- 
fore, on the west. The corner lot opposite was bounded 
south and west by the "hyway leadding to the mill." 2 
This could only refer to Hopkins's mill, and establishes its 
location. Possibly this was the only mill in operation in 
1655, and increased facilities were needed. A committee 
was then appointed to treat with Robert Hay ward of 
Windsor, and later to agree with Thomas Bunce to erect 
a new mill. Finally the inhabitants voted, January 23, 
1655-6, to appoint John Talcott, William Westwood, 
Nathaniel Ward and William Wadsworth to agree with 
workmen for the construction of a mill "upon the townes 
account." 3 At the same time, they owned the action 
of a previous committee in buying Hopkins's share of 
"the old mill with the appurtenances." The expenses of 
this venture were to be paid by rates levied upon the es- 
tates of the inhabitants. In three years these amounted to 
about £550. 4 The total of each inhabitant's assessment 
constituted his propriety interest in the mills. It is a good 
illustration of the method, already discussed, by which the 
proportions of the ancient proprietors were determined. 

1 Conn. Col.Rec.,1: 67. 
- Original Distribution, pp. 107, 255, 438. 
3 Hartford Town Votes, I: 106-Kl!). 

* Ibid., I: 109, 114, 120, 122, 130, 134, 140; Original Distribution, pp. 539, 546, 
549. 



THE BANKS OF THE RIVERET 189 

A mill book was kept, in which these shares were recorded, 
and they were passed by deed, or will, to new owners. 
Hopkins's mill was not displaced by the new building, but 
the latter adjoined it. The property is described in 1711 
as "two certain water grinding mills . . . under one roof 
or house." 1 There are other references to them as "two 
grist-mills." West of the mills there was a watering-place 
for public use, called, in 1812, the "Town Lane." In early 
years, these mills were managed by a committee chosen 
by the inhabitants. They employed a miller. Apparently, 
this town mill paid, for, in 1658, a vote was passed to reim- 
burse from its profits the committee that built the mill. 
The subsequent history of this mill is recorded in many 
conveyances. About 1720, Nathaniel Stanley acquired 
some of the scattered shares in it. William Stanley increased 
these holdings. He had a controlling interest in 1792. 
Consider Burt then secured it, partly by leasing Stanley's 
rights. The plant was then commonly called "Burt's 
Mills." In 1805, Bela Burt and Solomon Loomis succeeded. 
They sold, in 1812, to Eliphalet and Heman Averill, whose 
partner was James Babcock. Horace Burr bought out the 
Averills in 1815, and, in 1819, Ira Todd acquired the control. 
They then received the name "Todd's Mills." A clothier's 
and carding mill had been added to the grist-mills. Todd 
was very enterprising. He purchased from Reuben Wads- 
worth in 1829, his share of the "finishing mill" on the south 
bank of the stream, and, in 1833, he acquired the share of 
James Taylor. He sold a half interest in the mills on both 
sides, the latter year, to Leonard Daniels, to whom another 
quarter passed, from Lucius Nichols in 1836, and the balance, 
excepting the Stanley interest, from Lemuel Humphrey in 
1838. The rights of William Stanley had been bequeathed 
to the Second Ecclesiastical Society. Thus these ancient 
mills enter the history of our own times. 2 

We turn back to follow the history of the town's main 
bridge. Early intercourse between the plantations at this 
place was by a fordway over a ledge of rocks, now visible at 
low water. East of the mill there was, in later times, a 

1 Hartford Land Records, 2: 107. 

2 The Hartford Courant, June 29, 1912; The Hartford Times, July 15, 1891. 



190 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

"passway to the river." A similar reservation was on the 
south side of the stream. Here, it is thought, their earliest 
bridges were located. The proprietors of the old mills 
erected east of this a small house called the "miller's house." 
If they carried out the original plan, their first bridge was 
twelve feet wide, with rails on either side. Its substructure, 
we may infer, was not very heavy. Winthrop tells us that 
in 1645-6, there was "so sudden a thaw in the spring (the 
snow lying very deep) and much rain withal, that it bare 
down the bridge at Hartford." l Of its rebuilding we have 
only hints in the accounts of 1648, which refer to Mr. 
Haynes's rate "when the Brig was Biultt," and a payment to 
Thomas Bunce "for work at the Brig." That it was re- 
paired the same year, and its supports were strengthened in 
1651, may indicate that the freshets made it hard to main- 
tain their structure. At the latter date, the General Court, 
then in session, excused some from training, "to bee imployed 
about the raising of the worke prepared for the supporte 
of the great bridge." It was again repaired in 1660 and 
1667; but it was so old in 1671, that it was a question 
whether it could be made "safe & secure for Foot Folkes 
to pass ouer." At this time, there was a difference of 
opinion as to the best location for a new bridge. The 
Second Church had been recently organized. A meeting- 
house was in process of erection. Attendants there would 
naturally favor a location nearer or at Main Street, a short 
distance from the new church. There was delay. 2 The old 
bridge was examined by the townsmen and again by experts. 
One night, in the autumn of 1672, their differences were 
brought to an issue. The old bridge was burned. Two 
of the town's young men were arrested, as being "deeply 
suspicious" of causing the fire. They were finally dis- 
charged. 3 No doubt some thought it was justifiable arson. 
The town then appointed a committee "to bulde a good 
bridg ouer the riuer for passidg for horce & foott one y e 
publick Charge of y e toune & the toune leues it with y e 
aforesaide Committy to order y e dimenchons of y e said 
bridg and the place whare itt shuld be ereckted." * The 

1 Winthrop's History, BE: 311. J Hartford Town Votes, I: 164. 

» Probate Records, Book III, County Court, 1663-1677, p. 127. 
• Hartford Town Votes, I: 167. 



THE BANKS OF THE R1VERET 191 

town votes do not disclose the results of this action. A 
bridge was doubtless built at once, and, in the writer's 
opinion, near or at Main Street. Some calamity befell 
this bridge, for, in 1676, the town was in need of a "present 
passage to pass over the riuer," until another could be built. 
They then considered a stone bridge, indicating some im- 
patience with recent wooden structures. Again they were 
building a bridge in 1691, for a present passage over Mill 
River. From this time, the town bridge assumed a large 
importance. The two "Sides" which had maintained from 
the beginning certain individual interests, began to find 
more in common, along the dividing stream. It had, for 
some occupations, decided advantages over the landing or 
the square. Intercourse increased. The fordways were 
still in use. In 1702 they also resorted to a ferryman, 
probably at the lower crossing when the bridge was closed. 
The transformation along this dividing stream was gradual, 
and only culminated after many years. Still the days of 
the riveret's natural beauties were passing away. In 1728, 
the town authorized the building of a "new bridge," for 
which £130 were levied. It was their most ambitious 
effort hitherto. Captain Stanley, who lived near, was given 
the care of it. This was more generally called the "Town 
Bridge." Another was authorized in 1742, at a cost of 
£300. It was popularly termed the "Great Bridge" and 
lasted until 1756. Another was built in 1769. In 1780, a 
stone bridge was considered, to be paid for by a lottery. 
The plan failed and a new one was built in 1786. Porter's 
sketch of it, on his survey of 1790, indicates that it was of 
simple but strong construction. The need of repairing an 
old bridge, or building a new one, was before the town in 
1801, 1804, 1807 and 1817. The plan of 1804 contemplated 
one not less than forty, nor more than forty-four feet wide. 
Earlier bridges had probably not exceeded thirty feet. 
Stone piers to protect the supports were proposed in 1817. 
Finally, however, in 1832, a stone bridge was voted, and it 
was erected the following year. 1 Many doubts were then 
expressed as to the stability of an arch with a span of one 
hundred and four feet. This is now the Main Street bridge. 

1 Ibid., MS. Vol. Ill: 151, 154, 160, 165, 166; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, 
I: 368, 369. 



192 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

It was widened twenty feet east of earlier bridges and 
necessitated raising the highway six feet near it, with the 
lowering of the grade northward. 

That which contributed most to alter the appearance of 
the riveret, was the town's leasing of land along its banks. 
Locations had been granted, now and then, for shops on 
public land, but the earlier development was elsewhere. 
In 1695, Ebenezer Gilbert was given such a privilege on the 
south bank of the riveret. Other grants soon followed. 
In 1701, Thomas Gilbert was voted a location for a barber 
shop on the north bank, west of the bridge. Some of these 
grants were regarded as temporary and were not recorded. 
The practice grew, however, into a system of leases. The 
first of these was made in 1737, for twenty years. In 1753, 
forty years was the usual term. Within six years, a dozen 
were made. Then the town in 1760, having examined into 
all grants and leases, appointed a committee to sell and 
dispose of the lands on both banks east of the mills. Rules 
were adopted for the adjustment of all rights of occupants 
and future leases. The proceeds were to be used in erecting 
and maintaining the great bridge. It does not appear that 
new leases were made under this action. In 1769, another 
committee was appointed to carry out the rules. A new 
bridge was then in contemplation. Twice the activities 
of the committee were revived by other appointments. 
After the Revolutionary War, however, leases were common. 
The period was then nine hundred and ninety-nine years. 
In 1824, in consideration of the location of Washington 
College in Hartford, the town authorized the selectmen 
to quitclaim the rentals and fee in these leased lands to the 
amount of $5000 to the said institution. 1 The trustees of 
Trinity College have since disposed of most of this interest. 

The reader can best gather information concerning the 
changes along the Little River in colonial times, by follow- 
ing it westward from the mouth. On the right is Dutch 
Point, at first a low and sandy tract, then a part of John 
Haynes's pasture. It passed, in 1792, to John Ellery. 
Later it was occupied for occasional ship-building, and 

1 Hartford Land Records, 38: 377-405; Hartford Town Vote*, MS. Vol III: 
113; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 373. 



THE BANKS OF THE RIVERET 193 

finally claimed for manufacturing. In 1790, Porter located 
there a saw-mill. This gave place to Taylor's planing-mill, 
which was burned in 1849. Barber, in his Historical Collec- 
tions, shows a picture of Dutch Point as it appeared in his 
day. On the south side of the stream, west of the Point, 
was the House of Hope. For many years, the fields on either 
side were used for hay and pasture. Taylor's wharf on the 
north bank is noted in 1790. The bridge at Commerce 
Street was built in 1858. Between that point and Front 
Street on the right, there were originally two inlets, one of 
which is said to have been partly filled with the ruins of the 
Dutch fort. Abreast of John Chenevard's wharf, there was 
once an island, called "Sheldon's Island," after the family 
living near. The ford way crossed from Front to Governor 
Street. It was above the limits of the riveret's navigation, 
except at high water. The steamboat Barnett took advan- 
tage of one spring flood, to go up stream over Daniels's dam, 
as far as Imlay's foot bridge. At the beginning, there was 
a landing on the left, east of the fordway. It was near 
Governor Hopkins's house. There, the earliest merchants 
of the South-side Plantation conducted some of their trade. 
Perhaps there was also a landing on the north side of the 
stream. In 1793, when commercial interests increased in 
that neighborhood, the town laid out a public landing there. 
Continuing up stream, we pass on the right bank, the site 
of John Nichols's tailor shop and Daniel Hinsdale's store, 
and reach the lower dam. Here, in 1779, Thomas Seymour 
asked liberty to build a grist and saw-mill. It was opposite 
his homestead. He received, in 1787, the usual lease of the 
premises. The grist-mill was on the north, and the saw- 
mill on the south side of the riveret. Both continued for 
many years. In 1824, Ward's Woolen Manufactory occu- 
pied the former site. Little did Thomas Hooker imagine 
such a building across the street from his dooryard. The 
Ledyard elm that stood near was witness to these changes. 
West of the saw-mill there was another inlet or creek, over 
which a stone bridge was built before 1783. Most of the 
land on both banks westward to the falls was leased. On 
the north side, was the Ellery house, now standing at the 
end of Prospect Street. East of the bridge, Joseph Shepard 



194 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

leased land, in 1737, for his cooper shop. The old Shepard 
house is now east of the site. In 1769, Joseph Reed leased 
between Shepard and the bridge. His property was con- 
fiscated during the Revolutionary War, he having "joined 
the enemies of his country." It was sold in 1781, to buy 
saddles for Colonel Sheldon's regiment of dragoons. 1 Thus 
the owner paid his annual rental of "one peppercorn." 
The land passed to Nathaniel Patten and later to the Frank- 
lin Market Company. The junction of Arch and Main 
Streets was called "Shepard's Corner." At the northwest 
corner of the bridge, was "Stanley's Corner." Here, in 
1755, Colonel Nathaniel Stanley obtained a lease of a lot 
on the river's bank for forty years. John and Hephzibah 
Skinner became the lessees in 1787, having a house there. 
In 1790, Solomon Porter noted as landmarks west of them 
the houses of George Burnham, Benjamin Wood and Jacob 
Norton. Hudson and Goodwin were lessees next on the 
west. Then came the old miller's house. Near the mill, 
from 1773 to 1781, John Cable carried on a bakery, quite 
famous in its day. North of the mills there were more 
leased lots. In 1787, Ralph Pomeroy obtained a location 
near Mulberry Street bridge. There a stock company 
began the manufacture of broadcloth, a suit of which was 
worn by President Washington at his first inauguration. 2 
It was called "Congress brown." Later Cyprian Nichols 
had a soap and candle factory in this building. Factory 
Lane, or Gold Street, led thither from Main Street. The 
passways to the riveret along this bank were reserved for 
the use of fire engines. There they had occasional "washes." 
On the south bank of the stream, west of the saw-mill, 
some of the earliest leases were given. Thomas Hender 
was about seven rods west of the stone bridge across the 
inlet. In 1781 Aaron Bradley's blacksmith shop was west 
of this. He was succeeded by Adonijah Brainard. A 
watering-place was west of this shop. Richard Butler 
came next. At the southeast arm of the bridge, was Thomas 
Seymour's store of colonial days. In 1767, when he died, 
he had two shops, one on each side of the Little River, near 

1 State Archives: Revolutionary War, 34: 118, 119, 147, 253. 

2 Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 564, 565; New England States, I: 195, 196. 



THE BANKS OF THE RIVERET 195 

the bridge. In its later years the south side shop was 
occupied by Elizur Skinner's restaurant, called "Washing- 
ton Recess." J Across the street westward, John Lord was 
the first tenant in early times. He had a house and shop 
there, three rods west of the Great Bridge. 2 Later John 
Thomas gathered several properties there. They passed 
from him to Josiah Benton. Porter's landmarks between 
this tract and the mill dam in 1790, were Joel Carter's house, 
formerly Ezra Hyde's, and Reuben Wadsworth's. Between 
the Thomas and Hyde lots, was that where Cotton Murray 
had his store in 1777. It had previously belonged to Peter 
R. Livingston. He acquired it from Andrew Thompson, 
who purchased it from Daniel Bull in 1762. It was a well- 
known store in its day, and stood north of Moses Butler's 
tavern. At an early date Henry Hay ward, a malster, bought 
the lot originally owned by John Barnard, also a malster. 
He deeded, in 1698, to his son Samuel Hay ward his house 
and "also his malt-house," north of the highway on the 
river's bank. This location was devoted to that business for 
many years. The malt-house was a landmark for locating 
later grants, such as Ebenezer Gilbert's shop, James Taylor's 
fulling-mill and others. 

In colonial times the riveret west of the mills had no 
resemblance to the present stream. The dam then held 
back a considerable mill-pond. The land along its banks 
was low. In 1636, the area now included in Bushnell Park 
had a wild, woods-like appearance. Its islands were a 
picturesque feature. The land was claimed for tanneries, 
and it degenerated. Any one who remembers this tract 
before the park was created will not wonder that the propo- 
sition of Rev. Dr. Horace Bushnell was ridiculed by some 
as absurd. 3 Porter's survey of 1790 shows three islands 
within the east part. In 1824 there were only two, Ward's 
Island and City Island. The latter was probably made up 
of two as seen in 1790. John Bidwell was the original owner 
of an island here, about two roods in extent. It abutted 
southward on the river, and northward on a creek coming 

1 The Hartford Times, March 18, 1891; Hartford Land Records, 56: 368. 

2 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol II: 167; Hartford Land Records, 10: 238. 

3 "Letter of Dr. Bushnell" in Hearth and Home, Feb. 6, 1869, and The Hartford 
Courant, April 22, 1908; Connecticut Quarterly, I: 68-71. 



19C THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

out of the river between the island and the highway. Within 
a few years it passed in turn to Michael Spencer, William 
Williams and William Kelsey. From the latter Edward 
Grannis bought it in 1664, and the same year another island 
of the same extent was given to him by the town. It abutted 
on William Andrews's land, and is said to have been "com- 
passed about" by the river. These two islands passed in 
1671 to Samuel Burr, in 1674 to John Sadd, in 1715 to Daniel 
Messenger, in 1724 to Moses Merrill, in 1738 to Timothy 
Marsh and in 1741 to Joseph Forbs. 1 All these owners were 
interested in the tanning business, which, with the currying of 
leather, the manufacture of leather breeches and gloves, was 
carried on in that neighborhood throughout colonial times. 
When the dam of Allyn and Bidwell was built, it made a 
mill-pond that extended some distance up stream. The 
embankment ran across to the lot originally granted to 
Governor Haynes. There Rev. Joseph Haynes had made 
a garden, enclosed with a fence. Mrs. Sarah Haynes 
brought suit for damages. 2 She eventually won, but the 
mill-pond remained. The tract involved is now occupied 
by the State Armory. Capitol Avenue was formerly called 
Oil Mill Lane. The land south of it was a pasture until 
about 1850. Rocky Hill Brook ran northward through it and 
emptied into the riveret. At the west end of the lane, there 
was a flaxseed oil-mill. There, in 1739, Nathaniel Hooker 
and Samuel Talcott secured liberty from the town to build 
a dam against "Butler's ten acres." The same year Jona- 
than Butler sold them the land. It adjoined the falls in the 
river, "a little above the flood " of Daniel Badger's mill- 
pond. The grinding of flaxseed was carried on here for 
years. A grist-mill was added before 1798. In 1819, this 
property was acquired by Samuel Ledlie, who sold to 
William H. Imlay. It was sometimes called "Imlay's 
Upper Mills." The Sharp's Rifle Manufacturing Company 
bought here in 1853. Such was the beginning of Hartford's 
present manufacturing district. 

1 Original Distribution, pp. 144, 242, 245, 388, 539; Hartford Land Records, 3: 
19; 4: 1G2; 6: 208, 461. 

2 State Archiir.s: Private Controversies, III: 67-73; The Hartford Courant, Nov. 
6,1909; Hartford Land Records, I: 292. 



CHAPTER XIII 
ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 

The First and Second churches of Hartford have been 
favored with historians, who have written after careful 
research. Yet the colonial history of the town would be 
incomplete without sketches of those meeting-houses that 
occupied the foreground of interest in their day. To con- 
vey to the reader a general impression of them, is, moreover, 
to our purpose, because each edifice was typical of the time 
in which it was erected, and stands now for a period in the 
town's development. 

The first meeting-house of Hartford was perhaps begun 
by the pioneers in the spring of 1636. They were then 
anticipating the coming of Hooker's company, and would 
naturally wish to provide a place of worship before his 
arrival. The area they had reserved for public uses was 
called, in the entries of surrounding lots, "meeting house 
land," "meeting house lot," or "the meeting house yard." 
Perhaps they thought it might become necessary to sur- 
round this yard with a palisade, as planters did in other 
pioneer settlements. At its southeast bound, James Cole 
bought, at an early date, from Thomas Scott one rood of 
land, which is described as "lying by the meetinge houfe.' 
A lane led thence southward to the home-lots of their 
ministers, called the "chase way leading to the meeting 
house." It is thought, therefore, that this first place of 
worship was located in the southeastern section of the 
original square. Such, too, is the tradition. We have no 
description of it ; but it is fair to assume that, in construction 
and shape, it was like other pioneer meeting-houses in 
New England. If so, we may think of it as a plain struc- 
ture, built of logs, perhaps roughly squared, the chinks being 
filled with moss, or clay mixed with hay. The roof was 
thatched. Unglazed openings, provided with board shut- 



198 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

ters, served for windows, and the door was of plank. Ded- 
ham's first meeting-house, erected in 1637, was 36 feet long, 
20 feet wide and 12 feet high, from sill to plate; but that 
was used thirty-one years. Hartford's was a temporary 
structure, probably of that type and smaller size. As an 
estimate for purposes of comparison, a pioneer meeting- 
house 24 feet long, 16 feet wide and 10 feet high, would 
have been of liberal proportions. It might have had a 
wooden floor; but beaten earth was more likely. It was 
furnished with rough benches, on either side of a narrow 
passage. The men occupied one side and the women the 
other. At the end, an elevated enclosure served for a 
pulpit. Seats near the door were provided for the guard. 
It was certainly such a plain building, whatever its shape 
or size, for it was only a Puritan meeting-place, intended 
mainly to afford an opportunity for all to hear the Word of 
God, and capable of seating quite a company. To the 
assembly that gathered there, however, it was "none other 
than the house of God," made sacred by the sincerity of 
their religious aspirations and the public significance of 
their councils within its walls. If we assume that this 
meeting-house was in use until another was provided, it 
served the congregation for several years. It seems most 
likely to have been the "litle house in the Meeting house 
yard," which, on January 7, 1639-40, the townsmen re- 
ceived liberty to sell. 1 If so the plan failed, for, a few 
months later, William Spencer, in one of his last entries, 
made the record: "Its ordrd that the ould Meeting house 
shalbe given to m r Hooker." 2 We are to associate with 
this edifice all their early public assemblies. These included 
the general gatherings of the people, for civil as well as 
religious purposes. There, the Court, on February 21, 
1636-7, christened the settlement "Harteford Towne." 
The following month they doubtless held there the first 
election of magistrates. On May 1, 1637, their General 
Court would have been assembled there, when they de- 
clared war against the Pequot Indians. It was there, ere 
their brave warriors embarked, that Thomas Hooker prob- 
ably told them in a sermon that the savages "should be 

1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 11. * Ibid, I: 32. 



ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 199 

bread for them." ! They would have celebrated there 
also, on October 12, 1637, the first general Thanksgiving 
Day of the New England Colonies, and the earliest of 
record in Connecticut. 2 If we correctly interpret the town 
votes, and their first townsmen were chosen by the inhab- 
itants of the North-side and South-side plantations in 1637, 
it was within these walls that the first organized town of 
Connecticut was prematurely born. In the spring of 
1638, the committees and magistrates probably convened 
there to work out the democratic principles of their con- 
stitutional government. Most likely, too, Thomas Hooker 
preached there his famous sermon in May: and it was as 
picturesque a setting for the event as the cedars of Clark's 
Island for the Pilgrims, the old elm of Mattabesett for the 
settlers at Middletown, or the wide-spreading oak for the 
planters of New Haven. There they had certainly met that 
spring to confer with some Indian sachems, for John Hig- 
ginson states that it was in an edifice later "Mr. Hooker's 
barn," their second meeting-house being "then not buylded." 
There is a record of some "costlets" that had been kept in 
this house, probably suspended from pegs in its walls, like 
ancient armor, which were, on April 5th, committed to 
Richard Lord, to "bee fitted vpp." They had been used in 
the Pequot War; and the Indians had these weighty reasons 
for the submission they yielded at the conference. These 
scenes — and many others which an artist, only, could 
portray — must have transpired within that first meeting- 
house. 

It had become evident, however, in 1637, that they could 
anticipate a Colonial estate. A new era in their develop- 
ment was within their view, and it demanded expression 
in a meeting-house such as older communities in Massa- 
chusetts had already erected. Moreover, the town's in- 
habitants had increased. On any reasonable estimate of 
the size of their first edifice, it could not accommodate 
them. In his diary, Rev. Daniel Wadsworth records the 
fact that, when the second meeting-house was taken down, 

1 Mason's " Brief History" in Mather's Early History of New England, ed. 1864, 
p. 156. Cf. Numb. XIV: 9. 

2 Love's Fast and Thanksgiving Days of New England, pp. 135, 136. 



200 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

thedate 1638 was found "upon y e weather cock." l Other 
instances of such inscriptions are known. We have, how- 
ever, no town votes concerning their plans or the initial 
steps in carrying them out. Such action was doubtless 
taken, and it may have been recorded in the plantation 
records, but, as these votes were not of "general concern- 
ment" when William Spencer transcribed the orders then 
in force into the town votes, they have not been preserved. 
This second meeting-house was located, says Dr. Hoadly, 
"upon a little rising ground on the east side of the present 
state house square." 2 The conveyance of a share in the 
brick school-house, in 1759, states that this building stood 
on "old Meeting House Hill," and near the dwelling-house 
of Captain John Lawrence. The former edifice is supposed 
to have been a little southeast of it. Its architecture was 
of a type early adopted in New England and prevailing 
throughout the century. Such meeting-houses were nearly 
or quite square, with a truncated pyramidal roof, having 
at its peak a "tower and turret." There were doors on 
three sides, the fourth being occupied by the pulpit. We 
have good reasons to believe that Hartford's meeting-house 
was fifty feet square, and it was of sufficient height to 
permit the erection of galleries. 3 It is proved by the records, 
hereafter cited, that the first meeting-house of the Second 
Church was of that size; that the second meeting-house of 
that congregation also was exactly the measurements of 
the First Church edifice, and that other Hartford meeting- 
houses, built about the same time, adopted those propor- 
tions in their ground plan. The material of that erected 
in 1638 was wood. There was a door on the north side, 
near which the guard sat on raised seats. As the pulpit 

1 Wadsworth's Diary, p. 12. 

1 "Some Account of the Early Meeting Houses of the First Church," by Dr. 
Charles J. Hoadly, in Appendix to Sermons Preached by Rev. Leonard Bacon and 
Rev. Geo. Leon Walker, Feb. 27, 187'J; Rowland Swift in Tiro Hundred and Fiftieth 
Anniversary, p. 144; The Hartford Courant, July 29, Nov. 30, Dec. 2, 1907; The 
Hartford Time*; Aug. 17, Dec. 2, Dec. 4, 1907. 

8 New Haven's meeting-house, ordered in 1639, was "fifty foote square," and 
had a pyramidal roof (New Haven Col. Rec, I: 25, 145). Northampton's, built 
in 1661-1664, was forty feet square. That of Springfield, contracted for in 1645, 
was forty feet long, twenty-five feet wide and nine feet high. It had two turrets, 
one for a bell and the other for a watch-house. 







" #4f ¥ tnpi 






5» ^--:: 




ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 201 

was on the west side, the main entrance was doubtless on 
the east, according to custom. This was the natural front 
at that time. Probably there was also a door on the south 
side. There was a window on either side of each door. 
These were small. Their two narrow window-sashes, hung 
on hinges at the sides and opening in the middle, were 
glazed with lozenge-shaped panes of glass, set in lead. The 
cost of this meeting-house when completed, judging by the 
experience of New Haven, must have been considerable. 
It was not the custom in that day, however, to complete 
new meeting-houses at once. The work usually lingered 
for some years, and additional features were added as the 
inhabitants could afford the expense. This was the case 
in Hartford. Probably their edifice was sufficiently ad- 
vanced so that it was occupied during the winter of 1638-9, 
and they met there to adopt their first Constitution. Of 
the work's progress, we have several hints in the records. 
On April 11, 1639, the ringing of their bell is mentioned. 
This they had brought from Cambridge. The town agreed, 
on October 28, 1640, with Stephen Post, at 5s. 6d. per 
hundred, to hew, plane and lay the clapboards. One 
addition to their original design had been ordered a few 
months earlier. It was the construction of an enclosed 
porch, covering, as the custom was, the front doorway. 
In the author's opinion, this porch projected in front of 
the edifice. Over such porches a chamber was usually 
built, called a "porch-chamber." As now, with dormer 
windows, it furnished light and a convenient egress from the 
interior of the second floor. This empty space above a 
church auditorium, was called "the meeting house cham- 
ber." Springfield's church had, at first, only the joists 
for one; but, in 1649, John Pynchon agreed to "make a 
chamber over the meeting house and board it," provided 
he could have the use of it for ten years. There he stored 
his corn. 1 A stairway — usually in the porch or near the 
door — afforded access to such chambers. Hartford's meet- 
ing-house had apparently a floor above. It seems to have 
occurred to some, to add the porch and, through a chamber 
above it, to provide for the use of the second floor. How 

1 Burt's History of Springfield, I: 200. 



202 THE COLOMAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

much of the interior space above the auditorium was in- 
cluded in this chamber, we do not know, but sufficient to 
make a room of convenient size for ordinary uses. As, 
according to the records, it was situated directly over the 
church gallery, it must have included some interior space, 
and, if we may suppose that the porch was ten feet square 
as some were — as much, or more, taken from the interior, 
would have made a room of considerable size. This cham- 
ber was used in early times as an arsenal. A room in the 
Second Church was put later to the same use. There was 
no fire in either place to endanger a supply of gunpowder. 
This was the "Court Chamber" mentioned in later records. 
It was used by the upper house after the General Assembly 
had been divided, and was accustomed to convene in the 
meeting-house. They also called it the " Council Chamber." 
Here the smaller courts of the time may have held some of 
their sessions. Some time was occupied in completing this 
porch, but, as its construction did not interfere with the 
use of the auditorium, it could be done at their leisure. 1 
The seating of this meeting-house, according to the customs 
of those days, was ordered March 13, 1640-41. By that 
date, seats must have been provided and order established 
within. Henry Packs, in his will, dated September 4, 
1640, bequeathed to the church a clock, but, so far as 
known, it was never used in their meeting-house. 2 That 
would have been quite contrary to the customs of the time. 
Ministers then used hour-glasses, but gave little heed to 
them. 

This meeting-house had not been in use many years before 
it was found to be too small. The population had in- 
creased. Had it not been for emigrations to other towns, 
they would have been compelled to build anew before the 
Second Church was formed. This condition was met by a 
vote to build, with convenient speed, a gallery. In 1643, 
the town had voted to discipline any boy, who was mis- 

1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 39, 46. 

2 Manwaring's Hartford Probate Records, I: 29. In 1654 an inventory of the 
town's property has "The towne Clock at good Prats." It had in 1657 "A clock at 
John Allyns." Hartford Town Votes, I: 106, 119. The clock in the steeple of the 
third meeting-house was provided by public subscription in 1752. Russell's Hist, 
of Christ Church, I: 62 n. 



ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 203 

behaving "at the tim of publik exorcies ether in the mitting 
howse or about the wales without." Perhaps the insuffi- 
cient room for them within, or the need of a suitable place 
for them to sit, was one reason for the immediate erection 
of this south gallery, afterwards assigned to the boys. 
There, they were watched by the tithing-man. 1 In 1660, 
they voted to build a gallery on the east side. They also 
voted, in 1664, to erect a gallery "for the inlargment of the 
Rume." This was doubtless on the north side and com- 
pleted this improvement. Evidently the height of the 
walls had been greater than in some buildings to permit of 
such galleries. It may have been sixteen or eighteen feet, 
which was a liberal dimension. Repairs were made upon 
this edifice from time to time. The east side was newly 
shingled in 1660, and the south and west sides in 1667. 
At the latter date "necessary Lights for the Gallery" were 
ordered, altering the exterior appearance by the addition 
of small second story windows. The roof was newly covered 
in 1687, with cedar shingles, which, says Dr. Hoadly, they 
sought liberty to obtain in Fitz John Winthrop's swamp, 
between Haddam and Saybrook. In 1699, new window 
casements were needed. In 1704, underpinning, ground 
sills and clapboards were provided. At that time, William 
Davenport laid a new oak plank floor in the turret, "calking 
and pitching" it, and set up "the speere & vain." The 
year before, the pulpit had been furnished with a "Plush 
Cushin, a greene Cloth, and Silke for the fringes and Tasseles 
of s d Cushion," at a cost of £2. 14s. 6d. sterling. 2 In 1725, 
the bell was broken. The town finally decided to have it 
recast in England, with as much, or more, weight of metal 
added. The cost was £85, of which the First Society paid 
£47. 5s. 9d., and the Second Society £37. 14s. 3d. — a fair 
representation of their relative wealth at the time. 3 This 
bell being out of use in 1726, John Edwards was directed 
to purchase some suitable red bunting for a flag to be set 
up on the State House, "to direct for meeting upon public 

1 Two Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary, pp. 147, 148. 

2 Ibid., p. 147. 

3 Ibid., p. 151; Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 49, 51, 52. 



204 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

worship of God." 1 The breaking of the old "town bell" 
must have awakened in some recollections of the past. 
It had voiced the summons of their meeting-house so long, 
that a babe who heard its last peal might have been the 
great-grandchild of one who heard its first. So, genera- 
tions had come and gone in that century of struggle with 
the wilderness and the Indians, and not a little, also, with 
"the world, the flesh and the devil." Their meeting-house, 
had been the symbol of that period — small, unadorned, 
substantial. It was fitting that the old bell should ring 
out its dying peal and be broken. When it was returned 
from England, it gave forth a new and a fuller note. 

The awakening of interest at this time in the building of 
a new meeting-house, can hardly be regarded as a mere 
coincidence. To be sure, their present edifice was small 
and old, but for many years, that of the Second Church 
had relieved the congestion of attendance. In fact, it did 
serve them until 1737. We must turn back to the time 
when the church was divided, to remind the reader that in 
1670, as well as for years before that and years afterwards, 
Hartford was a dual community and had maintained its 
unity under a virtual treaty, by which the North-side and 
the South-side inhabitants shared equally in its government. 
The doctrinal and ecclesiastical issues of the controversy 
in the First Church cannot be minimized. It was not 
greatly to the disparagement of either party that differences 
should arise in Hartford, for the same issues were in dis- 
cussion elsewhere. This dual community life, however, 
apparently offered the disputants every advantage for 
creating a division. This was especially true in the later 
stages of the controversy, when Rev. Joseph Haynes, the 
son of a North-side settler, and Rev. John Whiting, the son 
of a South-side settler, came into open conflict. In most 
ecclesiastical disputes, there are elements that are not dis- 
cussed in the council's minutes. We suspect that this was 
true of the controversy that finally resulted in the forma- 
tion of the Second Church, February 12, 1669-70, most of 

1 The selectmen of Plymouth, in 1C97, were directed to "procure a flagg to be 
put out at the ringing of the first bell and taken in when the last bell was rung." 
In some places a flag was used to commence the time of worship. 



ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 205 

whose founders were South-side inhabitants and followed 
Rev. John Whiting. 

This action had been taken, pursuant to the vote of the 
General Court in October 1669, recommending to the 
First Church a course favorable to it, in default of which 
the withdrawing members were permitted "to release and 
releiue themselves, without offense to the Courte." We 
do not know of any favorable action by the mother church. 
The vote of the Court was not carried by any encouraging 
majority, four assistants and fourteen deputies dissenting. 1 
The old law concerning the maintenance of ministers, which 
was originally framed by the Commissioners of the United 
Colonies, did not then contemplate the support of two 
churches within a town. 2 Provision was made, therefore, 
at a town meeting in 1670, for the salary of Mr. Haynes 
alone. It happened, however, that relief was soon afforded 
by the revision of the laws, ordered in May 1671 and ap- 
proved in October 1672. Therein it was provided that, 
where there was more than one congregation in a town, 
"all persons shall contribute to one or both of those Societies 
within their township." 3 This allowed the new church to 
pay rates for the maintenance of Mr. Whiting and his 
ministry. In the will of Deacon George Grave, dated 
September 17, 1673, he specified that his lands should "pay 
their rates, according to their proportion, to the Mainte- 
nance of the Ministree at the new meeting house." Ser- 
geant Joseph Nash in 1675 did the same. At the begin- 
ning, however, the Second Church labored under a great 
disadvantage. 

Another problem was presented to them in the erection 
of their meeting-house. No public land could be secured 
without the town's consent, and there is no record of such 
a vote. Nor did their Society then have such corporate 
existence as was necessary for them to hold real estate. 
There was no other course than for them to build on private 
property. The commercial interests of the South-side being 
then largely near the southern end of the bridge, the lot 
that had originally belonged to Andrew Bacon was selected. 

1 Conn. Col. Rcc, II: 120. 2 Ibid., I: 111, 112, 545. 

3 Ibid., II: 153, 154, ICO, 176, 190, 290; Laws of 1672, title page and p. 52. 



206 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

This had been recorded to William Warren in 1664, under 
an agreement made the year before with Andrew Bacon and 
his nephew, Nathaniel Bacon, whereby payment was to 
be made in six annual installments, ending April 1, 1670. x 
William Warren was a member of the new congregation. 
At all events, the northern part of this lot, comprising about 
one and a quarter acres, with a dwelling-house and other 
buildings, passed to Lieutenant Thomas Bull. He did 
not buy this for a homestead, and we have found no evidence 
that he ever lived there. Nor was this lot recorded to him. 
In 1670, or within a few years, he certainly acquired it. 
There was no record to inform the curious that Warren had 
sold it, or, if he had, who the purchaser was. This lot was 
bounded west by Main Street and north by our present 
Sheldon Street. The land south of it was sold, in 1684, by 
Nathaniel Bacon to Richard Burnham, whose house and 
blacksmith shop were located there until 1738. Lieutenant 
Bull in 1682, by deed of gift conveyed his lot to his son, 
Major Jonathan Bull, who married in 1684, Sarah, the 
daughter of Rev. John Whiting. In his will, also, executed 
in 1684, Lieutenant Bull bequeathed to his son "my [his] 
Lott and House that I [he] bought of William Warren neare 
the New Meeting hous in Hartford." On this lot therefore 
owned at the time by Lieutenant Bull, the first meeting- 
house of the Second Church was built. It seems probable 
that the congregation worshipped in the dwelling-house 
until their edifice was completed. The meeting-house was 
south of this dwelling, and the land upon which it stood 
was never recorded to that Society. The truth appears to 
have been that, since the new congregation could not other- 
wise secure a site, Lieutenant Thomas Bull took the new 
meeting-house under his protection, and bequeathed the 
trust to his son Major Jonathan Bull, from whom it de- 
scended to Dr. Jonathan Bull. It is partly through a con- 
veyance made by Sarah, the widow of Major Jonathan, 
that we obtain an acquaintance with this meeting-house. 
She obtained liberty from the General Assembly in 1705 
"to make a sale of a small parcel of land in Hartford, not 

1 Original Distribution, p. 553; State Archives: Private Controversies, I: 121-123; 
Probate Records, Book III, County Court, March 5, 1673-4. 



ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 207 

exceeding fifteen foot in breadth and fiftie foot in length 
for the accomodation of the making some inlargement to 
the south meeting house in said town," in which sale, as 
administratrix, she was to act, on the advice of Major 
William Whiting. She conveyed, therefore, to Nathaniel 
Stanley, Richard Lord, Thomas Bunce, John Marsh and all 
others of the "Congregation of the Society of the South 
meeting house," 516 square feet of her home-lot, being 50 
feet and 4 inches in length and 10 feet and 3 inches in breadth 
throughout. This strip of land was bounded by the meeting- 
house on the north, her own home-lot on the south and east, 
and the street on the west. 1 That she sold four inches more 
in length than she was authorized to do, undoubtedly in- 
dicates that it was necessary in order to extend the strip 
to the east end of the edifice. As the addition was for 
"some inlargement," we conjecture that the design was to 
build an outside porch on the south side of the edifice and 
erect stairs to galleries within. If this explanation is cor- 
rect, this meeting-house, which we shall see was fifty feet 
square and doubtless had a pyramidal roof, would have 
been when completed similar to that of the First Church. 
Under the circumstances, this was a natural proceeding. 
There is no evidence in the land records that the above 
strip of land was ever conveyed by the Second Society. 

The ownership of the site of this meeting-house was in 
dispute, when the edifice was abandoned in 1755, from 
which we learn its exact size. A vote was then passed by 
the Society, empowering the committee "to Sell the Old 
Meeting Houfe and Leafe the Land belonging thereto for 
Nine Hundred and Ninety nine years to the higheft Bid- 
der." 2 To this, Jonathan Bull objected. He claimed to 
own, by right of inheritance, the fee in this property. Con- 
sequently, a suit was brought in the County Court in 1756, 
known as Jonathan Bull vs. Ebenezer Benton, Jonathan 
Seymour et al. The writ describes this property as "being 
about fifty feet Square, Bounded Weftwardly by the Town 
Street or Country Road, Southerly by land formerly appro- 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, IV: 512; Hartford Land Records, 1: 397. 

2 "Seymour Papers," in Boardman Collection, State Library, No. 5631. See 
also Nos. 5632, 5633. 



208 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

priated to accommodate the South Meeting Houfe so called 
in the firft Parifh in said Hartford," and on all other sides 
by land of the plaintiff. 1 The land herein mentioned as 
on the south was the strip above referred to, hence the 
meeting-house site was fifty feet square. The defendants 
contended that this land had belonged to the inhabitants, 
the Society having acquired from them an ownership by 
occupation. Thomas Warren, aged 82 or 83, testified to 
attending meeting there as a boy with his father, and 
declared that the meeting-house was built on land that was 
once his father's; nor had he ever heard of any person that 
laid claim to the land on which the meeting-house stood. 
He and Widow Hannah Olcott, aged about 92 years, also 
testified that the land had laid open to the street ever since 
they could remember. It is evident that the South Society 
had forgotten, if any of those then living ever knew, the 
facts concerning the location of their first meeting-house. 
This case was tried in the County Court in January 1757. 2 
The jury rendered a verdict for the defendants, from which 
the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court. Upon a final 
review of the case, this verdict was reversed, and the plain- 
tiff recovered possession of the lot, with damages and costs. 3 
We have, thus, sufficient evidence to determine the type 
of this meeting-house. It was doubtless patterned after 
that of the First Church, erected in 1638, and of the same 
size. In general appearance it was similar after the erection 
of the porch about 1705, which the street on the west made 
it necessary to place on the south side. It stood on Main 
Street, near the residence recently owned by Hon. Henry 
C. Robinson. Probably this edifice was begun about 1670. 
James Ensign, in his will executed November 23, 1670, 
bequeathed £6 "towards the building of the new meeting 
house." The will of Deacon Grave in 1673, intimates that 
it was then completed and in use. In 1719, the Society 
was permitted by the town to erect horse sheds 10 feet wide 
and SO feet, long at the end of the school-house, nearly oppo- 
site in the highway. 

1 8uperior Court Papers, September Term 1757, State Library. 

- County Court Records, Vol. T, January term 1757, case 20. 

3 Superior Court Records, Vol. 12, March and September terms, 1757. 



ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 209 

Few, if any, congregations of that day had endured more 
from courts and councils in order to attain such a consum- 
mation of their desires. We know of none that seemed 
to hold their minister in higher esteem. Within the first 
fifteen years of the church's history, no less than ten of his 
loyal supporters made bequests to him in their wills, perhaps 
in recognition of his loss those early years when the town 
withdrew its support. 1 So the Second Church of Christ 
in Hartford, which Major James Richards termed, in 1680, 
the "South Church," entered into the privileges of its sanc- 
tuary, named in the earliest records " the new meeting house " 
and "the meeting house of the South side of the Riveret." 2 

Thus it happened that the "Town Bell," which had hung 
so long in the tower of the First Church meeting-house, had 
for more than half a century summoned the worshippers 
of both congregations. The recasting of it was regarded 
as the town's duty, in which both societies ought to share. 
The matter was referred to a committee representing both 
bodies. It was under consideration for several months. 
As both churches then needed new meeting-houses, this 
conference became the occasion out of which the proposition 
arose to reunite the two churches. In 1726, the First 
Society voted that such a union would be better for the 
town and the "honorable support of the ministry." A 
committee was named to propose the same to the "new 
church." The plan failed, however, to receive sufficient 
favor from that body to warrant further consideration. It 
was altogether unlikely that a new meeting-house could be 

1 These bequests were: James Ensign, 1670, £5; Christian, wife of Benjamin 
Harbert, 1670, three acres of land; Gregory Wolterton, 1674, £5; John Bidwell, 
Sen., 1683, 20 s.; Major James Richards, 1680, £15; Justes Banbury, 1672, 20 s.; 
Captain Thomas Watts, 1683, £20; Elder John White, 1683, £5; Thomas Hos- 
mer, 1685, £5; Lieutenant Thomas Bull, 1684, £3. 

2 Gregory Wolterton wrote his own will. His use of the phrase "South side of 
the Riveret" in 1674 is significant. The most common early designation is "New 
Meeting House." On the title page of Rev. John Whiting's election sermon, 
printed in 1686, he is called "Pastor of the Second Church of Christ in Hartford." 
The caption of Rev. Thomas Buckingham's early records, made after 1694, has 
"Second Church in Hartford," but whether this phrase was copied from Rev. 
John Whiting's record is uncertain. The Town Votes speak of "the second church 
now in Hartford" in 1684. Mrs. Bull probably used the common designation in 
1705 — "South Meeting House." In deeds "South Ecclesiastical Society" appears 
in 1755, "South Society" in 1765 and "Second Ecclesiastical Society" in 1774. 



210 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

located south of the riveret satisfactorily to both churches, 
and the South-side was too nearly equal to the North-side 
in inhabitants and wealth to surrender the privileges it 
had so long enjoyed. 

There is evidence of the force of such considerations in 
the protracted controversy the First Society had in locating 
its own meeting-house. 1 After eleven years, the possibili- 
ties of further discussion being exhausted, the southeast 
corner of the burying-ground was selected. The original 
vote of 1734 contemplated a brick edifioe seventy feet long 
and forty-six feet wide, the exact dimensions of North- 
ampton's meeting-house, erected the same year. The 
length was afterwards reduced to sixty-six feet, and wood 
was substituted for brick. "This house stood," says Dr. 
Walker, "sidewise to the street, its steeple on the north end. 
There was a door at the south end, another on the east side 
and another under the steeple on the north. The pulpit 
was on the west side, and, over it, a sounding board, and 
behind it a curtain." There were two rows of windows, set 
with small rectangular panes of glass, the lower sash, at 
least, being hung on weights. The "Great Alley" ran from 
the east door to the pulpit, and another, it is said, crossed 
it from north to south. Un cushioned slips occupied the 
floor and gallery space, excepting a few more pretentious 
pews on either side of the high pulpit, which increased in 
number as the century advanced. "The tower," says Mr. 
Rowland Swift, "elevated the bell turret a full story at least 
above the ridge pole — the spire still rising high above this 
with its lofty pole and gilded ball and weathercock." On 
July 31, 1737, Rev. Daniel Wadsworth preached his last 
sermon in the old meeting-house. Its destruction was 
begun the following week, the pulpit, seats and bell being 
removed. Some of its timbers are said to be in the present 
edifice. The congregation met in the State House August 

1 Dr. Walker's History of the First Church, pp. 278-289; Two Hundred and Fif- 
tieth Anniversary, pp. 151-158. These volumes are authorities on the second meet- 
ing-house. See also "Some Account of the Early Meeting Houses of the First 
Church," by Dr. Charles J. Hoadly, in Appendix to Sermons Preached by Rev. 
Leonard Bacon and Rev. Geo. Leon Walker, Feb. 27, 1879; Wadsworth's Diary, pp. 
25, 28; The Hartford Times, Aug. 17, Dec. 2 and 4, 1907; The Hartford Courant, 
July 29. Nov. 30 and Dec. 2. 1907. 



ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 211 

7th, and there conducted worship until December 30, 1739, 
when their third meeting-house was dedicated. On that 
occasion, Mr. Wadsworth preached his only published ser- 
mon, entitled, "Christ's Presence the Glory of an House of 
Publick Worship," printed at New London in 1740. 

There was a great similarity among the meeting-houses 
erected in New England about the middle of the eighteenth 
century, especially in the Connecticut valley. Their dimen- 
sions, interior arrangement and architecture varied little. 
Doors were placed as the convenience of the location sug- 
gested. It is said that a plan of this meeting-house had 
been prepared by Mr. Cotton Palmer of Warwick, R. I., 
who received one pound for the service and his advice. He 
was not an architect, as that term is now used, but a builder. 
Probably he had merely a draft of this edifice, and obtained 
his ideas and measurements from some early builder's com- 
panion. 

Ten years after the dedication of this edifice the Second 
Church decided to erect a new meeting-house. The matter 
had been determined before the January session of the 
County Court, 1749-50, when that authority was asked to 
fix a site. The Court appointed Colonel Elizur Goodrich 
and Hezekiah May of Wethersfield, and Captain Jonathan 
Hills of East Hartford, to view the premises, notify and hear 
all parties and report to it. A site was fixed at the July 
session, but it was not approved by the Society. It was 
"in the highway that comes from the westward," now Buck- 
ingham Street. The southeast corner of the meeting-house 
was to be about two rods north of the northeast corner of 
Joseph Buckingham's house-lot, on which the present church 
stands. 1 As the Society had voted to erect a building 
"sixty-six feet in length and forty-six feet in breadth" — 
the exact size of the First Society meeting-house — the 
highway would be almost closed. Only about two rods 
were left at each end. The space on the north was in the 
winter and spring covered with ice or flooded, so as to be 
impassable. On the south, it was claimed, the highway was 
much used for carting hay, corn and wood. There was 
also "a considerable run of water" coming along Main 

1 County Court Records, Vol. S., July, 1750. 



212 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Street, which would run under the meeting-house. This 
was the brook mentioned in deeds of that time. The 
ground, too, it was thought, would endanger the foundations. 
Thus the project encountered obstacles that delayed it for 
two years. On May 20, 1752, the "Inhabitants of the 
Second Society" petitioned the General Assembly for a new 
location. The committee recited the facts, stated the 
proposed size of their edifice, and admitted that it was made 
larger than the Society required because the two societies 
often had occasion to meet together. 1 The Assembly 
appointed a new committee, upon whose report the site was 
fixed. It was about thirty feet east of the former, two- 
thirds of the building being in Main Street. 2 It stood the 
longest way north and south. The bell tower measured 
16 feet. It was in the center, at the north end. There 
was an entrance through it into the church, almost in line 
with the west sidewalk. There were also doors in the center 
on the east and south sides. The pulpit was on the west. 3 
In the interior, the arrangement was quite similar to the 
First Church meeting-house. This edifice was begun, as Dr. 
Parker discovered in the "Memorandum Book" of Thomas 
Seymour, "in the fore part of the year of our Lord, 1752, 
was three years in building, and finished about the latter 
end of the year 1754." 4 It was occupied by the congrega- 
tion January 5, 1755, but, on December 2nd, Rev. George 
Whitefield preached in it the first sermon. So far as it is 
possible to make a comparison between the meeting-houses 
of the First and Second churches, the main feature in which 
they differed was their spires. In 1737 the First Church 
had invited the Second to contribute towards a steeple 
where the town bell could be hung — probably without re- 
sults. It then ordered its committee to do the work. The 
contract with Mr. Palmer was for £250, but there were ad- 
ditional expenses. They paid Eben Sedgwick £9. 15 s. for the 
spire pole. To Seth Young they paid £52. 13 s. 6 d. for a 
gilded brass cock and ball, which adorned its summit. As the 
base of the tower measured fourteen feet, the above details 

1 State Archives: Ecclesiastical, IX: 19-22. 

- Conn. Col. Ree., X: 96, 106. 3 The Hartford Times, March 18, 1891. 

4 Dr. Parker's History of the Second Church, pp. 120-123; "Seymour Papers" 
in Board man Collection, State Library, No. 5630 tf. 



ANCIENT MEETING HOUSES 213 

may indicate that its spire was patterned more after that 
slender and tall type, which some of the meeting-houses 
of that day had. The Second Church edifice is described 
by a traveller in 1807 as "of wood, alike unornamented 
within and without, and when filled there was still pre- 
sented to the eye nothing but what had the plainest 
appearance." * Its steeple was erected by a subscription 
of sixteen men, amounting to £465. At its base the tower 
was two feet larger than that of the First Church edifice. 
The spire was more of the conventional type. 2 In this 
feature, the meeting-houses of that period usually displayed 
the taste and wealth of the congregation. 

These were not the only meeting-houses erected in Hart- 
ford during the colonial period. One was built on the 
East-side in 1699. It was probably one of the small square 
edifices, which continued in fashion into the next century. 
Its location was on a low hill where the South Meadow Road 
diverges from Main Street. This stood until 1735. Its 
successor was erected about the same time as the First 
Church meeting-house. The dimensions were exactly the 
same. It had no steeple. In 1754 it was painted. 3 A 
meeting-house was built by the West Society in or about 
1712 and stood diagonally across the highway from the 
present church. It also was probably a small barn-like build- 
ing. North of this, at the same corner its successor was 
erected in 1742-1744. This followed the type then pre- 
vailing in the town. The third meeting-house of the West 
Society was built in 1834 and is the present town hall. 4 

That there were no other churches in Hartford about 
the middle of the eighteenth century, does not indicate 
entire unanimity of religious faith. In 1745, John Tiley 

1 Kendall's Travels, I: 4. 

2 The Wadsworth Athenaeum has an old oil painting, the colors of which are 
much dimmed, which shows the spire of the Second Church meeting-house. It is 
said to have been formerly in the possession of the Pond family. As this edifice 
was torn down in 1828, and the picture also shows the spire of the present First 
Church meeting-house, erected in 1807-1808, the painting was executed between 
those dates. A writer in the "Old Days in Hartford" articles, No. 27, Connecti- 
cut Post, refers to this or a similar painting as giving the view from Lord's Hill in 
1818 and states that it was painted by Waldo. 

3 Goodwin's Hist, of East Hartford, pp. 129, 130. 

4 The Hartford Courant, May 19, 1913. 



214 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

declared himself as a Baptist. He had been a member of 
Elder Stephen Gorton's church in New London since 1726, 
and had sometimes been there to worship. 1 John Bolles, 
called the father of the denomination in Hartford, attended 
church in Suffield before 1789. He and others then formed 
a church. It is said that their first meeting for worship was 
held in the home of John Bolles. A meeting-house was 
erected about 1794, on the corner of Market and Temple 
streets. There were Methodists in Hartford as early as 
1789, but no meeting-house until 1821. The year before, 
services had been held in the old Court House on Church 
Street. A few merchants or traders of the Jewish faith 
were occasional residents of Hartford in colonial times. 
There were Roman Catholics, also, before 1781, when Abbe 
Robin, chaplain of the French troops* celebrated mass in 
their encampment. Neither had any stated place of wor- 
ship. About the middle of the eighteenth century, there 
were a number of families in Hartford that had affiliations 
with the Church of England. These had so increased in 
number and strength that, after 1762, occasional services 
were held. Land for a church was purchased, and there 
was a parochial organization. The first administration of 
the Lord's Supper was celebrated in the Court House in 
1766. This early movement declined during the Revolu- 
tionary War. Adherents were then in fellowship with the 
church in Middletown. The interest was revived in 1786. 
Their first church was built in 1792, on the north corner of 
Church and Main streets. 2 

It must be admitted that Hartford was no exception to 
the rule of colonial times, in showing intolerance toward 
dissenters from the established order, especially when they 
violated the laws. Some such were confined from time to 
time in Hartford's jail. There were others, however, of 
good religious standing in the community, who worshipped 
reverently in its Puritan congregations, because there was 
no church in the town according to their faith. Their 
dissent was doubtless known, but, in the general esteem 
for their characters, it was overlooked. 

1 State Archives: Ecclesiastical, X: 312, 313. 

2 See Dr. Russell's History of the Parish of Christ Church. 



CHAPTER XIV 
SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 

The places where the founders of a town or commonwealth 
were accustomed to meet in early times, have ever afterwards 
a public interest. If there was a rude log hut erected within 
the palisado by the pioneers of 1635, that was the town's 
first public building. In 1636, the meeting-house became 
the place for assemblies and continued to be such for some 
years. It is not so likely, as it seems to the writer, that all 
their general or particular courts in early times were held 
there. That was not in accordance with their custom in 
old England; nor would it have suited their convenience. 
The story is told that an Indian was hired to seek a lost 
horse, which its English owners had sought in vain. He 
dashed off into the forest and quickly found it feeding in a 
well-watered intervale. When he was asked for an explana- 
tion of his read}' 1 success, he replied: "I just thought what 
I would do, if I were a horse." Their courts for some years 
had comparatively few members. If the reader had been 
one of them, he certainly would have suggested some more 
comfortable place of assembly than a cold meeting-house in 
mid-winter. In England, courts of that time were fre- 
quently convened at inns, and are sometimes to this day. 
At the inn, members could stable their horses and find 
lodgings and entertainment for themselves. The hall was 
a suitable meeting place. It seems very likely that the 
settlers convened their courts in such inns, as soon as suitable 
ones were established. Such is the indication of the records. 
On June 3, 1644, the General Court, after rehearsing the 
need of such inns or ordinaries in the Colony, passed an 
order requiring each town to provide one. We have no 
hint of any inn in Hartford before this date. At the same 
meeting, John Steele, Andrew Bacon and James Boosey 
were appointed a committee to secure "some conuenient 



216 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

house in Hartford, for the comly and sutable meeteing" of 
the Commissioners of the United Colonies in September. 
This body numbered eight. It certainly would not convene 
in a meeting-house, and no such place was thought of in 
Hartford. We are not told what house the committee 
secured; but we do know that Thomas Ford, a deputy of 
that General Court from Windsor, married, November 7, 
1044, Ann, the widow of Thomas Scott. They then, or 
soon afterwards, established the first inn in Hartford, at the 
late home of the deceased husband. Perhaps that was the 
meeting place of the Commissioners. In 1645, John Win- 
throp, the younger, recorded in the diary of his journey to 
Connecticut the fact that he "reached the inn of Thomas 
Ford at Hartford," about nine o'clock in the evening of 
November 17th. 1 He spent the next day there, on which 
he says, "the Governor and magistrates went to Tunxis 
Village." This entry at least suggests that this inn was 
their place of assembly and departure, to which Winthrop 
was a witness. Thomas Ford was keeping this inn in 1648, 
although he had a large property in Windsor. 2 It was 
located on the southwest corner of State and Front streets. 
Thomas Scott, at his death in 1643, had bequeathed to his 
widow and son Thomas a half interest in this property. 
The house at that date evidently had a hall, parlor, several 
chambers, a garret, cellar and leanto. It passed, in 105 c 2, to 
Thomas Cadwell. 

We next note that the General Court, in May 1660, ordered 
that no person in Hartford, excepting Jeremy Adams, should 
sell wines and liquors in small quantities, as innholders did. 
The Court was presumably convened at his tavern, as two 
of its members were appointed to take in his account. 
This inn was located on Main Street, where the Church of 
the Redeemer recently stood, now occupied by the southern 
half of the Travelers Insurance Company building. It was 
originally the lot of John Steele, and in 1650 passed to John 
Talcott, who sold it to John Morris, from whom Jeremy 
Adams bought it in 1051. As this was shortly before the 
Ford inn was sold, we may infer that it was acquired for 

1 2 Ser. Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc, VIII: 8; The Hartford Courant, Dec. ii, 1892. 

2 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 168. 



SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 217 

the purpose of an inn, and was the successor to Ford's. The 
messuage or tenement of John Steele is mentioned in the 
above transfers. It was probably a house of the better sort, 
and of some size for that day. The lot comprised two and 
one-half acres. Jeremy Adams mortgaged this property 
in 1661, to John Talcott, treasurer of the Colony, to secure 
the payment of a debt. This unusual action probably meant 
that the Court had an interest in Adams's possession of the 
premises. On March 13th following, they gave him three 
hundred acres of land. Moreover, upon his desire that 
the house he "doth now possess and improue for an Ordnary, 
or house of coinon enterteinment, shalbe and remaine for 
the same end and vse and occupation for the future," they 
gave him a perpetual license, to run to his heirs and suc- 
cessors. The conditions were, that the inn be conducted to 
the approval of the General Court, that the house "be 
fitted and made capable" of giving entertainment to neigh- 
bors and strangers, and that the accommodation be ample 
for travellers, "both respecting wine and liquors and other 
provision for food and comfortable refreshing both for 
man and beast." l This appears very like an agreement 
between the Court and its landlord, to provide for the enter- 
tainment of its session, or to continue a provision already 
enjoyed and in danger of interruption, because of the finan- 
cial embarrassment of the host. No other innholder re- 
ceived such consideration. This action is further signifi- 
cant in view of the Court's recommendation to the freemen, 
the previous October, to consider the reduction by one-half 
of the number of deputies, because of the expense of so large 
a body. At that session, these numbered twenty-three. 
In September 1661, they certainly had a "Court Chamber" 
in "the house of Jeremiah Adams," as mentioned in a 
deposition of that date, and alluded to afterwards as the 
place where their courts convened. In 1679, the County 
Court reprimanded him for "having no signs according to 
law." He was ordered to provide a "compleat one." 
Jeremy Adams died August 11, 1683. In his inventory the 
furnishings of the chamber are enumerated. Among the 
items are the following: "In the Court Chamber two 

1 Ibid., I: 378. 



218 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Tables & a Carpet, £ 1. 10 s.," "One doz. of joynt stools 
& a forme, £l. 10 s.," and "2 leather chayres & 4 other 
chayres, £l. 10 s." At that time, the inn and its land 
were owned by the Colony, the mortgage having been 
foreclosed January 14, 1680-81. In 1684, a committee was 
appointed to sell the property, "according as they shall 
judg most advantageous for the country." On December 
2, 1685, it was conveyed to Zachary Sandford,' grandson of 
the former host. 1 That this inn continued for some years, 
as formerly, to be a place for court assemblies, is unques- 
tioned. The "court chamber" had become the recognized 
center of all judicial proceedings, and Sergeant Sandford 
was a worthy host. He is said to have made additions to 
the house. At the Court's special meeting, March 30, 1687, 
a committee was appointed "to agree with our [their] land- 
lord Sanford for the payment of what the country is indebted 
to him." 

Here, one of Hartford's historic scenes was enacted. It 
was on the 31st of October, 1687, that Governor Edmund 
Andros reached Hartford, in the hope of receiving the sur- 
render of Connecticut's charter. He would have stopped at 
the inn, where the General Court was then convened. There 
was some conference concerning the matter in the "court 
chamber." Trumbull says: "The important affair was 
debated and kept in suspense, until the evening, when the 
charter was brought and laid upon the table, where the 
assembly were sitting. By this time, great numbers of the 
people were assembled, and men sufficiently bold to enter- 
pri.>e whatever might be necessary or expedient. The lights 
were instantly extinguished, and one Captain Wadsworth, 
of Hartford, in the most silent and secret manner, carried 
off the charter, and secreted it in a large hollow tree, front- 
ing the house of the Hon. Samuel Wyllys, then one of the 
magistrates of the colony. The people appeared all peace- 
able and orderly. The candles were officiously re-lighted; 
but the patent was gone, and no discovery could be made 
of it, or the person who had conveyed it away." Such was 
the story in his day. The tree was known in colonial times, 
and in 1780 esteemed sacred as that in which the charter 

1 Ibid., I: 145, 172; Hartford Land Record*, 1: 95. 



SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 219 

was concealed. 1 There is a tradition that, long before the 
coming of the English, the Indians were accustomed to 
hold their councils underneath its wide-spreading branches, 
and plant their crops when it put forth its leaves in the 
spring. Its age at its fall was computed by competent 
authority as nearly a thousand years. This famous tree 
stood on the estate that was owned and occupied by the 
Wyllys family for nearly two centuries. In 1823, it passed 
from the heirs of George Wyllys to Stephen Bulkeley, who 
built there one of those stately mansions, which formerly 
graced the streets of Hartford. He is said to have used 
much of the ancient frame of the Wyllys mansion. This 
property passed to Mr. Bulkeley's son-in-law, Hon. Isaac 
W. Stuart. The sacred oak fell August 21, 1856. The 
next day, it was the subject of several early photographs 
taken by N. A. Moore of Hartford, which are now in the 
collections of the Connecticut Historical Society. 

How long Sandford's inn continued to be used for such 
courts, must be left to conjecture. An order of October 1689, 
notes the meeting of the assistants "in the court chamber" 
to canvas the nominations of the towns. Probably the 
Governor and Council, empowered in 1692 to act for the 
General Court between its sessions, and other smaller bodies, 
continued to meet there for some time. Sandford had a 
bill against the Governor in 1704, for "expenses in his house." 
It was paid by the Colony. He had apparently made over 
the greater part of his household goods to his son-in-law, 
Jonathan Bunce, before 1710, when he made his will. In 
this, he mentions "the jury chamber." His inventory, taken 
in 1713, does not refer to the court furniture. Jonathan 
Bunce died in 1717. His inventory mentions "A Long Table 
& Foarm," probably once owned by Jeremy Adams or 
Zachary Sandford. "In y e Jury Chamber" there were 
"Four Turkey work chairs," but the apartment was fur- 
nished as a bedroom. "In v e Court chamber" there were 
"A Long Table," "a fmall Do," "A Turkey Work Carpett," 

1 Trumbull's History, I: 371; Hoadly's The Hiding of the Charter; Stuart's 
History of the Charter Oak, MS. in collections of the Conn. Hist. Soc; Twitchell's 
Hartford in History, pp. 99 ff.; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 63 ff.; Conn, 
as a Colony, I: 247 ff. On the Charter Oak tree, see The Hartford Courant, Oct. 
29, Nov. 2, 5 and 19, 1907, April 19, 1914; The Hartford Times, Aug. 18, 1906. 



220 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

"Six chairs & 4 cushions." The contents of this room 
suggest that it was then used largely for storage purposes. 
As there was a "jury chamber," we may infer that this 
inn had been generally used for trials. 

A new era had come, however, for the General Court. 
Its size had increased. In October 1698, it was ordered 
that thereafter it was to consist of two houses. 1 The same 
session introduced the roll call of deputies. Thereafter, it 
was termed in the records the "General Assembly." In 
the author's opinion, it was about that time that the Assem- 
bly, having outgrown the inn, began to convene regularly 
in the meeting-house. The upper house then used the 
porch chamber, which was of sufficient size for that body, 
the lower house using the auditorium of the church on the 
first floor. It is noted in connection with the meeting of 
the Court of Assistants, May 12, 1708, that a constable 
was charged to go with the jury "to a room appointed" 
and remain by themselves, until they had agreed on a 
verdict. On May 27th, Joseph Wads worth was before 
this court, for using improper language to Ichabod Wells, 
the sheriff, "he the said Wadsworth being in the Gallery 
of the Meeting house in Hartford, under the Court Cham- 
ber where the Governor and Council were sitting." 2 These 
quarters at length became unsatisfactory to some of the 
Assembly. In 1712, the meeting-house was nearly seventy- 
five years old. That year, at its May session, the upper 
house numbered eleven and the lower house sixty-five. 
On the 14th of that month, Governor Gurdon Salton- 
stall made certain proposals to that body, the last of 
which was as follows: "What provision may be requsite 
to be made, in the present want of a suitable house 
for the holding our General Assemblies." It was referred 
to a committee, which thought there should be court-houses 
in each county, "but more especially at Hartford and New 
Haven, for holding the General Assemblies." Action was 
deferred by the lower house. At the same session, it was 
voted to sell certain country lands and use the proceeds 
"to the building a publick house or houses for the use of 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, IV: 267, 282, 284. 

2 Records of Court of Assistants, II : 95. 



SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 221 

the Assembly and other courts." x Objections to this plan 
arose, and nothing came of it for some years. The Council 
voted, therefore, in 1715, to "repair the court chamber in 
the first meeting house at Hartford, so as may be safe for 
the courts to be held in the same, at the Colony's charge." 2 
This was the porch chamber in which the upper house con- 
vened. Thus they managed until 1718, when the proposal 
for a court-house was adroitly coupled with a plan for the 
encouragement of Yale College and its final location in New 
Haven. 3 The amount appropriated for the former purpose 
was five hundred pounds, which was eventually secured 
from the sale of lands in Stafford, Voluntown, New Milford 
and Danbury. On October 28, 1718, the Governor and 
Council appointed a building committee, consisting of 
William Pitkin, Esq., Joseph Talcott, Esq., and Captain 
Aaron Cook. Their design, as approved by the Council on 
March 11th following, gives a good description of this pro- 
posed building, then called a "State House." 

"This board are of opinion that a house of seventy-two 
feet long, thirty broad, twenty-four between joints, with a 
range of pillars under the middle of the beams of the cham- 
ber floor, a door on each side, and at each end, a staircase 
at the south-west and another at the south-east corner, two 
chambers of thirty foot long at each end, one for the Council 
and another for Representatives, with a space of twelve 
foot between the two houses, and a staircase into the garrets, 
and on the other side a lobby to the Council chamber, will 
well serve the occasions designed by the Assembly, and 
answer their expectation in the grant aforesaid." 4 

This building, the Assembly at its October session, ordered 
the committee to erect with all speed. The length was 
apparently altered to seventy feet. Two hundred and 
fifty pounds were taxed on Hartford County, in February 
1719-20, toward finishing the building, and the balance 
was paid by the public treasury. 5 According to the same 
proportion, the Colony and County bore the expenses of 
repairs in 1732, and also in 1735, when shutters were pro- 



1 Conn. Col. Rec, V: 325, 333. 






2 Ibid., V: 493, 512. 


* Ibid., VI: 


91, 102. 


3 Ibid., VI: 35 36,8, 3, 84. 


5 Ibid., VI: 


157, 158. 



222 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

vided for the lower windows to prevent the breakage of 
glass. The building once had a cupola, but it was never 
restored after a fire, which threatened the entire edifice in 
1783. This fire was occasioned by its illumination, or by 
fireworks at the peace celebration. 

Although this building was at first called the "State 
House," after a few years, the more common designation 
became "Court House," especially in later advertisements. 
It stood in the square, in front of the present City Hall. 
In 1796, it was sold to make room for the new State House, 
and was moved to the rear of Christ Church. There it 
remained for many years, being owned by the trustees of 
the estate of Ebenezer Clark. It was occupied at sundry 
times, wrote Dr. Gurdon W. Russell, as a tenement house, 
a school taught by George J. Patten, where the late Mr. 
Henry Keney was once a pupil; a shop in which Charles 
Hosmer printed an edition of Scott's Bible; the place where 
the Methodists worshipped, before their church on Trumbull 
Street was built, and a factory where Force and Goodnow 
made carriages and William R. Loomis shaped saddle- 
trees by machinery, the power being a horse in the cellar. 1 
The parish of Christ Church bought the property in 1833; 
and part of the building was sold to Messrs E. B. Pratt and 
G. H. Hart, who removed it to a location in the rear of 
Nos. 185 and 187 Pearl Street. There, Robert Walker, 
and later Preston and Kenyan, had a paint shop. It was 
torn down in 1910, after a life of nearly two centuries, to 
make way for the telephone company's building. 

The most historic public building of Hartford that has 
been intrusted to present and future generations, and the 
choicest example of earlier architecture, is the State House, 
completed in 1796. It is a memorial of the city's incorpora- 
tion, and the result of its early enterprise, as elsewhere 
related. At the beginning of its history, the City of Hart- 
ford having been aroused to an interest in its municipal 
privileges and responsibilities, determined to secure the 
erection of a state house, which should be worthy of honor 
among its citizens. The best legacy that colonial times 

1 The Hartford Times, Nov. 17, 1904, May 25, 1907; The Hartford Courant, 
Nov. 2, 1910; Geer's Directory, 1879. 




i:iHI!!i!iill 



, « lis e 








*<55iv5ii*.]i «ffis( 1 






SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 223 

in their passing away could have left to those who will 
inhabit the city two centuries hence, is such a building. 
In accepting it for city uses, Hartford has taken a moral 
responsibility to preserve an edifice that has been made 
famous by the State and is consecrated by the labors of 
her citizens. 1 This building, consecrated anew as the throb- 
bing heart of Hartford's municipal life, will receive great 
praise in that day when cities realize the dream of the proph- 
ets; and the place of a man's birth, whatever his race, 
will quicken his pride and give him honor in his wanderings. 
The Connecticut General Assembly, at its May session 
in 1792, appointed a committee "to superintend the Businefs 
of erecting and finishing a large Convenient State House in 
the Town of Hartford." The gentlemen named were: 
John Chester, John Caldwell, John Trumbull, Noadiah 
Hooker and John Morgan. The material specified was 
brick. They were to raise £1500 from the inhabitants of 
the City, Town and County of Hartford, and if raised before 
May 1, 1793, they were authorized to draw on the State 
for £1500. The original subscription list of Hartford has 
been preserved by the Connecticut Historical Society. 
Colonel Jeremiah Wadsworth was the first and largest 
subscriber, giving $500. The city contributed $3500., and 
the County $1500. In May, 1793, the Assembly granted 
the privilege of a lottery to raise £4000. It was attempted, 
but failed of financial success. After the money raised had 
been used, and work on the building was suspended, the 
General Assembly accepted the proposal of Colonel Jeremiah 
Halsey of Preston and General Andrew Ward of Guilford, 
to complete the State House "according to the proposed 
plan," in exchange for the State's interest in the Gore Lands 
on Lake Erie. They received a deed of these lands July 25, 
1795. 2 Their land venture was not successful, and subse- 

1 "The Old State House, Hartford — Why it should be preserved" — Publica- 
tions of the Municipal Art Society of Hartford, Bulletin No. 15; The Hartford Courant, 
Nov. 2, 1904, Oct. 19, 1905, March 7, 1906, March 4 and 10, 1910, Nov. 19, 1910, 
Feb. 3, May 24, and Dec. 3, 1911, March 8 and Nov. 16, 1913; The Hartford Times, 
March 10, and Nov. 19, 1910, March 10, 1912. 

2 See "The Connecticut Gore Land Company," by Albert C. Bates, in Annual 
Report of the American Historical Association, 1898, pp. 141 ff.; The Hartford Times, 
Oct. 20, 1908. 



224 THE COLONIAL HISTORY' OF HARTFORD 

quently they received assistance from the State. The build- 
ing is said to have cost $52,480. A Hartford builder — 
Joseph Woodbridge — was in charge of the construction. 

That this State House was erected after a design by 
Charles Bulfinch, cannot be doubted. It is unnecessary to 
produce drawings by this architect to prove this claim. 
Experts attribute the design to no other. There is, however, 
in the Comptroller's office at the State Capitol, a bill ren- 
dered by John Chester, chairman of the committee, for his 
expenses in September 1792 to Boston, then the archi- 
tect's home. It reads: "To Journey & expences to Boston 
for a plan of faid State House, $31.60." He was probably 
moved to this because of the advice of his associate, John 
Trumbull of Hartford. On September 30th, Trumbull 
wrote a letter to Hon. Oliver Wolcott at Philadelphia, in 
which he says: "A new State House is to be built here next 
year upon a Design of Mr. Bulfinch, which I think is worth 
executing in the best materials." 1 The writer then specifies 
certain particulars and gives details of the building, on which 
he desired to secure an estimate in marble. These could 
only have been given after an acquaintance with a design. 
It would seem that Mr. Chester's visit to Boston was suc- 
cessful, and that John Trumbull had examined the design, 
and possibly had it before him when he wrote. 

This building was first occupied by the General Assembly 
in May 1796. It was then practically completed. The 
balustrade around the roof was added in 1815. In 1822, the 
cupola was ordered. It is said to have been copied from that 
of New York's old City Hall. John Stan wood put it up 
in 1827. The Common Council of Hartford appropriated 
$150. in 1848 for a clock. The balance was paid by private 
subscription. The bell was cast in 1830, by Enos Doolittle 
for Ward, Bartholomew and Brainard of Hartford. While 
all that has been said or written of the architectural excel- 
lence of this historic edifice is true, it must ever be regretted 
that it can no longer be seen, as originally intended, from the 
eastward slope at the head of State Street. Its front en- 
trance was on that side, and distance is necessary to reveal 
its stately elegance. This view was obstructed by the gov- 

1 Wolcott Papers, VIII: 64, in collections of the Conn. Hist. Soc. 



SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 225 

eminent building, occupied in 1882. Pictures alone can 
disclose the State House and its surroundings in earlier 
days. As seen in them, with its esplanade planted with 
trees; a broad paved walk leading up to its steps; its three 
arches below closed by iron gates, and lofty windows above, 
through which one formerly looked from its portico, the 
whole surrounded by an iron fence, each post of which was 
a lictor's fasces — this public building was worthy of the 
honor that has been awarded to it by many a visitor. 1 
This is the only edifice in Hartford that makes good claim 
to be historic. Here, the Hartford Convention met Decem- 
ber 15, 1814, and the Constitutional Convention in 1818. 
More than thirty of Connecticut's governors have been 
inaugurated within its walls, where most of the State's 
public men for more than a century have been assembled. 
The chronicler for President Monroe, who visited Hartford 
June 23, 1817, mentioned it first, after stating that "the 
public buildings, considering the size of the place, are not 
exceeded by any town in the Union." Other Presidents of 
the United States have been the city's guests — President 
Jackson, June 17, 1833; President Polk, June 28, 1847; 
President Johnson, June 20, 1866; President Grant, July 2, 
1870 — and, if they have not entered its doors, they must 
have looked with admiration upon the Capitol, as they 
passed. On September 4, 1824, the Marquis de La Fayette 
received from Hartford the most enthusiastic welcome ever 
given by her citizens to a visitor from abroad. Escorted by 
the military, and attended by his son, George Washington 
La Fayette, he rode through the city's streets in Daniel 
Wadsworth's carriage drawn by four white horses, and, 
along the way, the multitude rent the air with shouts — 
"Welcome to La Fayette" "Welcome to La Fayette." 
On the east front of the State House he was greeted by eight 
hundred school children, whose badges bore in French the 
sentiment "We love you, La Fayette." They presented 
the hero with a gold medal inscribed "Presented by the 

1 The esplanade was early surrounded with a wooden fence with turned posts 
and bars. Inside of it a row of Lombardy poplars was planted. In 1834 the Legis- 
lature ordered an iron fence, for which $8000 was appropriated. In 1882 it was 
removed to the Old People's Home on Jefferson Street. Later it was secured to 
enclose the grounds of the West Middle School. 



226 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Children of Hartford, Sept. 4th 1824." In the senate cham- 
ber, which had been elaborately decorated, he was introduced 
to many of the ladies of the city. There was an evergreen 
arch on the west side of the State House, bearing on the right 
and left the words "Monmouth" and "Yorktown." Here 
he reviewed the procession. In the line, there was a com- 
pany of eighty Revolutionary Veterans, under the command 
of Judge Hillyer. Many were old, and some were maimed. 
As they passed La Fayette, he stretched out his hand, and 
they all drew near to shake it, with much feeling — a 
moment that was never forgotten in after years by those 
heroes of American Independence. 

The Connecticut Legislature held its last session in the 
State House in March, 1878. Its alteration for municipal 
purposes was then determined, and the city took possession 
March 13, 1879. The famous spiral staircase, with its 
graceful hand rail, which had been the work of Asher Benja- 
min, was then removed. The senate chamber was refitted 
for the Board of Aldermen, and the hall of representatives 
for the Councilmen. The building was dedicated to city 
uses October 22, 1879. 

The City Hall of Hartford, previous to the occupation 
of the State House, was located on Market Street. This 
building was projected partly because a new market was 
needed. An auditorium was also desired for promiscuous 
public uses. Town meetings, after the erection of the old 
Court House, had usually been held in that building, though 
occasionally the inhabitants met in one or the other of the 
meeting-houses. There had been, how ^ver, a growing senti- 
ment against the secular use of places of worship. On the 
other hand, amusements of various kinds had increased in 
popularity. 1 A commodious hall had thus come to be a 
public necessity. The matter was presented to the Council 
November 1, 1827, by Mayor Nathaniel Terry. It was 
favorably received, and a committee was appointed to 
inquire as to sites. The report recommended the purchase of 
the Lee homestead on Market Street. This lot had been 
under consideration by the parish of Christ Church as a 

1 See Dr. Parker's chapter on "Social Life after the Revolution" in Mem. Hist, 
of Hartford County, I: 578 ff. 



SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 227 

location for their new edifice. It was deeded to the city 
November 9, 1827. At the time, some favored a site on 
Trumbull Street, and others the use of State House Square, 
where stores underneath the hall could be rented. Plans 
were presented on January 28th, following. The dimensions 
of the building as erected, were sixty by one hundred and 
ten feet. The market on the ground floor provided about 
twenty stalls, those on the east side being entered by wide 
doors. A broad aisle ran north and south. The floor was 
of flagging. A "Watch House" for the four night watch- 
men, who then constituted the city's police force, was built 
in the southwest corner. At the north end were two rooms, 
one with cells where disturbers of the peace were confined. 
On the second floor, there were rooms for military and vari- 
ous other purposes. Those at the north end were for the 
Common Council. The hall itself, with an anteroom at 
the entrance, was on the third floor. A gallery at the south 
end was built in 1829. There are many living who remember 
this building and scenes within it, such as town meetings of 
the old sort, political gatherings, military occasions, gradu- 
ating exercises, lectures, fairs, dramatic performances and 
balls. Here Daniel Webster was heard in 1837, and Abra- 
ham Lincoln in 1860. There was a time in Hartford's his- 
tory when this City Hall was the center of a large social 
life, now scattered in many places; but the story pertains 
to more recent times. 1 

To return to the town's earlier history, it should be said 
that some buildings, now considered essential to public 
interests, were wholly unknown in early New England life. 
The system of town government was very simple. The 
selectmen were the high local officials. Of all their officers, 
the town clerk usually had the longest term of service. 
This was generally due to the natural fitness of certain men 
for such work, in communities where few had the time for 
it or were familiar with records. Prior to the Revolution, 
Hartford had only six town clerks. These were: John 
Steele, chosen November 16, 1639, served twelve years; 
William Andrews, January 12, 1651-2, eight years; John 
Allyn, April 11, 1659, thirty-seven years; Richard Lord, 

1 The Hartford Post, May 27, 1893. 



228 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

December 23, 1696, nine years; Hezekiah YVyllys, Decem- 
ber 25, 1705, twenty-seven years; and George Wyllys, 
December 12, 1732, fifty years. The deeds of this entire 
period filled only sixteen volumes. About the same time 
has elapsed since, and the deeds have filled more than three 
hundred and sixty volumes. Such has been the develop- 
ment of Hartford. The early town clerks, having only a 
few books in their care, kept them where it was convenient — 
in their homes, stores or offices. It is the town's good fortune 
that none have been lost or burned. This fact shows why 
there was no demand for a public record office. The present 
Halls of Record building was not erected until 1853. * It 
was preceded by a small building, which stood on the south 
side of Pearl Street, where the State Savings Bank is now 
located. It was used for town clerk and probate purposes. 
The land was bought, in 1835, from Robert Watkinson, 
and the building was erected the next year. 2 

One of the public places that would soon be inquired for 
today by a visitor to any town, is the post-office. Buildings 
devoted solely to this service, were unknown in colonial 
times. A consideration of their early custom of dispatching 
letters, and its development into a postal system is pertinent, 
however, and very important to an acquaintance with their 
life. In earliest times messengers came and went at inter- 
vals, mostly on public business. Letters were committed 
to them, and also to neighbors and friends, for delivery. 
Even the stranger considered this a matter of politeness. 
Places were naturally appointed by convenience or authority 
where letters were received or dispatched. At Boston in 
1639, Richard Fairbanks's place was so named. There was 
a monthly mail between New York and Boston in 1672. 
Connecticut, and especially Hartford, New Haven and 
New London, profited by their location on the route of 
through travel. Sir Edmund Andros proposed to have 
"John Perry the post" go from Boston to Hartford monthly, 
during the winter of 1687-8, and "oftener in the spring"; 
but his project failed. 3 A new era in this service began with 

1 Hartford Land Records, 84: 474; 91: 67, 68. 

2 Ibid., 57: 29; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 372. 
» Conn. Col. Rec, III: 393, 398, 442. 



SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 229 

the issue of letters patent by King William and Queen Mary, 
February 17, 1691-2, to Thomas Neale, Esq., providing for 
a postmaster-general of all the American Colonies. 1 Andrew 
Hamilton was then appointed manager; and the post be- 
tween New York and Boston was continuous thereafter. 
In 1693, a general office was established in Boston. The 
rate to Connecticut was nine pence. John Campbell was 
later made postmaster at Boston. In 1704, he began pub- 
lishing The Boston News-Letter. His successor, Ellis Huske, 
also established a newspaper — The Boston Weekly Post- 
Boy. There was an obvious connection between the post- 
master's office and the printed dissemination of news. 
Thomas Short, the first printer of Connecticut, engaged 
with the General Assembly, in 1708, to dispatch with speed 
the acts and proclamations that he printed. 2 John Campbell 
early announced in his paper a fortnightly service between 
Boston and New York, by which Hartford and Saybrook 
were alternately the points where the post-riders met. In 
1708, he proposed to the General Assembly "to settle a 
constant post between the towns of Hartford and Saybrook," 
and asked some allowance therefor. 3 It seems probable, 
therefore, that some convenient place in Hartford was 
early made a depository, where a letter could be left for the 
first traveller or post-rider going to its destination. Inns 
were often so used. Still we are unable to identify any such 
place during the first half of the eighteenth century. On 
January 1, 1755, James Parker and Company began to 
publish in New Haven The Connecticut Gazette. It was 
printed "at the Post Office, near the sign of the White- 
Horfe." In 1761, the "Printing and Post Offices" there 
were at the house formerly occupied by Captain Hatch. 
To further the circulation of his paper, Parker employed a 
post-rider in 1755. He went weekly from New Haven to 
Hartford, via Wallingford and Middletown. Parker's ad- 
vertisement on October 18th says, "My good cuftomers at 
or near Hartford are defired to pay their Arrears to Mr. 
John McKnight." This gentleman, who then lived on 
Wethersfield Avenue, was a Hartford merchant. He prob- 

1 Acts and Resolves of Mass., I: 115; VII: 50, 430, 434. 

2 Conn. Col. flee, V: 69. » Ibid., V: 69. 



230 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

ably received and delivered copies of Parker's newspaper, 
and possibly had some further connection with this early 
post service. At that time, letters and papers were received 
and delivered at Hon. Jonathan Trumbull's store in Lebanon, 
Hugh Ledlie's in Windham and Daniel and Joshua Lothrop's 
in Norwich. The Connecticut Gazette was suspended in 1764, 
and, on October 29th of that year, the prospectus of The 
Connecticut C our ant was issued. In 1764, also, John Walker 
was appointed postmaster of Hartford. He was the son-in- 
law of Dr. Normand Morrison, who had died in 1761. The 
postmaster was living on the Morrison estate, the house and 
shop being on the east side of Main Street, a few rods north 
of the square. Here he kept the post-office. It was adver- 
tised as a place "well accommodated for a merchant or 
tradesman." In 1767, there was some irregularity about 
Walker's accounts, and he was displaced and lodged in 
Hartford gaol. The case did not come to an issue in the 
courts, much to the disappointment of James Parker, who 
had become, meanwhile, secretary to the postmaster-general 
in New York. 1 On October 22, 1767, W T illiam Ellery, 
maternal grandfather of Governor Thomas H. Seymour, 
was commissioned postmaster by Benjamin Franklin and 
Thomas Foxcroft, joint postmasters-general. He kept the 
post-office at his store, "near the Great Bridge." The post- 
riders were then Isaac Tucker and John Bunce. Andrew 
Hurd was engaged in 1769. Their route was between New 
York and Boston, via Hartford, which had one post day a 
week. This service did not pay, and it was proposed to 
discontinue it. Secretary Parker thought the riders carried 
more letters for themselves than they did for the service. 
They were allowed to deliver packages at their own rates; 
and certain persons evaded the postage by enclosing letters. 
An order was issued in 1771, requiring the receiving post- 
master to open these packages. Mr. Ellery resigned in 
1770, and a commission was issued to Mr. Knight Sexton, 
but the former postmaster soon resumed office. He served 
until 1777, being recommissioned by Franklin, September 
22, 1775. For a time in 1771, the office was removed to the 

1 "Seymour Papers" in Boardman Collection, State Library, No. 5479 to No. 
5499. 



SOME PUBLIC BUILDINGS 231 

house of John Ledyard, Esq., on Arch Street. James Parker 
died in 1770, and Alexander Colden succeeded him. The 
latter was followed by R. N. Colden. In 1774, the secretary 
sent Mr. Ellery "a set of Stamps" for the Hartford office. 
The postmaster was required to mark each letter as it came 
into his office, with the name of the town, month and day 
of the month. The Connecticut Courant of April 7, 1777, 
announced the resignation of William Ellery and the suc- 
cession of Thomas Hilldrup, who settled in Hartford about 
1772. He was a watch maker and repairer. His shop was 
located "a few rods north of the State House," where Dr. 
Jepson had been. Here he kept the post-office for several 
years, removing thence to another shop, "a few rods south- 
west of the State House." His frequent change of location 
afterwards made the post-office a jest among the towns- 
people. In 1790, the national postal system was established, 
and Thomas Hilldrup was its first Hartford postmaster, 
being appointed February 16, 1790. He was succeeded, on 
January 1, 1795, by Ezekiel Williams, who served until 
1803. 1 One can easily imagine what this post-office in Hart- 
ford was in colonial times — a mere depository for the con- 
tents of the postboy's saddle-bags. The conditions during 
the Revolutionary War augmented the importance of it 
and increased its use, but they did not tend toward its reg- 
ulation as a business enterprise. After the town became 
a convenient connection in stage travel, and prominent 
through river trade and its own enterprise, the post-office 
began to assume a new function in commercial life. 

1 Hartford Sunday Journal, June 15, 1882. 



CHAPTER XV 
SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 

The man some students of Hartford's early history would 
most like to interview, is the traveller who has thoroughly 
seen the town and is about to resume his journey. If the 
ferryman had only kept a record of the gossip he heard, 
and had passed his notebook on to his successors, it would 
have told an interesting story. His passenger would have 
had little to say about the houses, churches, mills, shops or 
highways of the town, for they were like others throughout 
New England; but he would have given us some inside 
information concerning the resorts, occasions, customs and 
dress of the town's society. Now and then, some one did 
visit our fathers, even from abroad, and print a few of his 
observations. A Frenchman, who came in 1788, wrote of 
the town: "It is confidered as one of the moft agreeable 
in Connecticut on account of its society." 1 To another 
visitor, we are indebted for a description of the doings on 
election day. If others had only told us in detail what they 
saw and heard during the fair week in May or September, 
on a market or training-day, or about some good dame's 
tea-table, we would become acquainted with the town's 
social life. There were no novels written in that day, nor 
society journals. They took no photographs. Very few 
wrote letters on the common affairs of life. Occasionally 
some one made a deposition in court, and then the plain 
truth was told. The fact is, that the antiquary's most 
difficult task is to picture, with proper drawing and color, 
the life of colonial times that every one would now find most 
interesting. Records, genealogies, furniture, portraits and 
grave-yards, while they are valuable, are apt to make our 
ancestors appear too much like mummies in a museum. 
Perhaps there are some reasons for gratitude in the dis- 
closures made concerning a few, of those days, who lied, 

1 New Travels in America, by J. P. Brissot de Warville, p. 72. 



SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 233 

stole, slandered their neighbors and became drunk at the 
taverns, just like modern folks, for that is unmistakable 
evidence that their daily life was such as our own. At first, 
social life in New England was quite like that of the Puritan 
class in the mother country. Here, however, it had another 
environment and, as time passed, it came into its own — a 
type of society that could be found nowhere else. It is 
impossible here to trace minutely the development of this 
social life. Let it suffice that we introduce the reader to 
some places in early Hartford to which it habitually resorted, 
and to those special occasions when, in its best attire, it 
displayed itself in public. 

The reason for the law of 1644, establishing inns, was, 
the need of entertainment for "passengers and strayngers." 
These innkeepers were to be nominated by the inhabitants 
of each town, and to be approved by two magistrates. We 
have no record of early nominations in Hartford. Perhaps 
Thomas Ford, Jeremy Adams and Zachary Sandford may 
be considered as innkeepers, by the appointment of the 
General Court. Naturally, these inns soon became widely 
known. There, all travellers or distinguished guests sought 
entertainment. Few prominent planters of that time were 
not, on occasion, attendants at court and, probably, guests 
at the inn. Jeremy Adams was doubtless a typical landlord. 
He was a man of some standing in the town, had been a 
constable, and, in 1638, was twice appointed to attend 
Captain Mason in trading with the Indians for corn. On 
some public matters he seems to have been considered an 
authority. He certainly had a mind of his own, and was 
not always backward in expressing it. On one occasion, 
he encouraged Thomas Hosmer to resist an officer, and was 
guilty of "passionat distempered speches, lowd languadge & 
vnmannerly cariedge" before the court. He was careless 
in his financial management; a man, too, it is thought, who 
had some personal idiosyncrasies. And yet he was apparently 
the inhabitants' or court's choice to succeed Thomas Ford 
as innkeeper. Probably he had some affable and generous 
characteristics, which made him a good entertainer with 
wit and wisdom, as well as in the culinary department. At 
least his inn was a popular resort for social life. It stood 



234 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

some rods back from the roadway. In front of it there was 
a well. A garden and outbuildings were conveniently placed 
in the rear. It was just such an inn as a man, who was 
nearly thirty years old when he left England, would have 
established in a new country — as much like the old inn of 
his native town as it could be. The same scenes transpired 
within it as are recorded of famous hostelries across the 
sea. There, its habitues discussed political issues, named 
their candidates for the next town meeting or the Colonial 
government, and by unanimous consent drank to their 
military heroes. Sometimes, commissioners of great dignity 
spent many days there. Officials of fame in other colonies 
arrived, creating a flutter of excitement throughout the 
community, and, in due time, departed. If an Indian war 
was raging, military officers held important councils there. 
One can easily imagine the arrival of expected scouts. 
Ministers sometimes met there. It was then as proper for 
them to drink rum as it was for their parishioners. That 
old inn probably witnessed many a festive scene about 
Landlord Jeremy's hospitable board. Alas, courts were 
held there, when stories, criminal or scandalous were re- 
hearsed, and the condemned went forth to the pillory, 
stocks, whipping-post or gallows. These were the sensa- 
tions of the community. Any day, the landlord might have 
expected at nightfall the coming of the young emigrant 
family on their way westward; or the visit of the frontier 
farmer, for some news to carry back to his solitude and some- 
thing to cheer him on his way homeward; or the arrival of 
the captain, whose ship had anchored in the river off the 
landing-place with a cargo from the West Indies or Eng- 
land; or the summons of the mud-covered rider, who had 
certain packets of important papers for the Colonial Gover- 
nor, and perhaps letters for delivery to the inmates of Hart- 
ford's homes. All these were welcome visitors. They had 
news from the border settlements, from the Bay, or from 
the great outside world and the home government, upon 
which so much of their prosperity and happiness depended. 
The landlord could then replenish his wasted stock of news, 
for that, rather than rum, was the important commodity 
in maintaining an ancient inn. It was that which gathered 



SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 235 

his customers. In the course of time, the post-rider arrived 
at such inns with some regularity. Then many awaited the 
disclosure of his treasures. It was toward the close of the 
colonial era, we must remember, that newspapers came into 
circulation. One reason why they were so barren of local 
items was, that the inhabitants had this other method of 
disseminating news. It was carried by travellers from inn 
to inn. That custom helped to make the New Englanders 
of those times a race of newsmongers. Thus the ancient 
inn had a useful mission, notwithstanding some incidental 
harm. It quickened the intelligence of society, disseminated 
much necessary information, furthered the moral advan- 
tages of publicity, helped to restrain and detect crime, 
served the people for a post-office, often sent abroad warn- 
ings of danger, and dispatched many a message of courage, 
cheer and affection. Jeremy Adams and his successors were 
important factors in all this. He must have had some quali- 
ties that made him the man for the place, to have held such 
sway until his death in 1683. At all events, his demise was 
properly mourned, for John Talcott, treasurer of the Colony, 
notes in his accounts, that he paid for "3 Gallons and 3 
quarts of wine for Jer: Adams funerall." 

Zachary Sandford kept this inn for twenty-five years. 
In 1713, his son-in-law, Jonathan Bunce, "reigned in his 
stead." A daughter, Sarah Bunce, then married Samuel 
Flagg, who acquired control in 1732. He established there 
the "Black Horse Tavern." His inn became equally 
famous. In 1740, he erected a new house. Under the 
date September 30th, Rev. Daniel Wadsworth made the 
entry in his diary, "Mr. Flaggs House raised." In 1756, 
when Samuel Flagg was omitted in the distribution of 
licenses, he petitioned the General Assembly for one. He 
then stated that he had "Largely laid out himself in accom- 
modable Buildings." His license was doubtless withheld 
because of the enmity he had engendered in the dispute 
over the rights of the ancient proprietors. He also informs 
us that his inn was then a resort for many officers and 
soldiers in the war, and that places of entertainment were 
needed in the town. 1 Still, licenses had been granted that 

1 State Archives: Travel, III: 381-383. 



236 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

year to thirteen persons. When Samuel Flagg died in 1757, 
his widow, Mrs. Sarah Flagg, continued the inn. At her 
death in 1769, her son, Joseph Flagg, became the landlord. 
After the Revolutionary War, the Flagg estate passed to 
other hands. Then Captain John Chenevard, who had 
married Hannah Flagg, kept a tavern at or near the same 
place. Its later history is often referred to. 1 We get a 
look into this tavern as Samuel Flagg left it, through his 
inventory. The furniture of his "Barr room" was as 
follows: a "Long table," "6 old chairs of y e common sort," 
a pair of cob-irons and tongs, pint and quart decanters, 
"5 foot drinking glasses," "2 blew stone quart mugs," "4 
punch bowls," a "case of bottles," "snuff bottles," pint, 
half pint and gill measures, vials, grater, etc. The house 
had an "old kitchen," probably used as a dining-room. 
Dishes were kept there, and it was furnished with an oval 
table. There was also a "new kitchen," where the cooking 
was done. The house had besides these a kitchen bedroom, 
chamber and cellar in that section. In its "buttery" there 
was a tempting amount of old pewter. The main cellar 
contained a stock of port wine, cherry rum and rum of the 
ordinary New England kind. On the first floor there was 
a "South-east Bedroom," where the fire-arms and ammuni- 
tion were kept, and a "North Room," used doubtless as a 
parlor. The latter contained a library of twenty-seven 
books, among them "One Law Book of this Colony." On 
the second floor there were five bedrooms. A "Close room" 
and "Garret" are also mentioned. In an outbuilding, 
called a "Shop," tools of various kinds were kept. The 
landlord owned several cow t s, a yoke of oxen and horses 
for saddle use. He had no chaise. Such was the Flagg 
homestead of about three acres, largely covered today by 
fine insurance buildings. 

This was by no means the only tavern in Hartford during 
the first century of the town's history. In 1663, Marshal 
Jonathan Gilbert bought the two acre house-lot formerly 
owned by Clement Chaplin. It was next north of Jeremy 
Adams's lot. Soon afterwards he removed thither from 

1 Scaeva's Hartford in the Olden Time, p. 213; The Hartford Post, Oct. 14, 1893; 
The Hartford Times, April 3, 1906. 



SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 237 

the South-side, and was given liberty to retail wine. Here 
he kept a tavern until his death in 1682. His house was 
probably on the east end of his lot, near Meeting House 
Lane. His widow Mary Gilbert succeeded him, and, later, 
his son Samuel Gilbert. In 1703, the town's votes mention 
only Lieutenant Sandford and Samuel Gilbert as licensed 
to keep victualing-houses and retail liquors. There were 
other early inns, however, along the routes of travel from 
Hartford, such as John Sadler's in Wethersfield and Jona- 
than Gilbert's at Cold Spring in Meriden. Samuel Gilbert 
sold, in 1707, to Captain Caleb Williamson, who also kept 
an inn, which he leased in 1740, to William Tiley. The 
latter was the landlord for some years. 

There were others in the seventeenth century who had 
licenses to sell liquors, but probably they did not entertain 
travellers. In 1693, the County Court granted a license 
to Mrs. Elizabeth W T ilson. She was allowed to retail wines 
and liquors "to her neighbors, she not suffering it to be 
drunk in her house, and not selling it to servants or chil- 
dren." The record in the town votes in 1695 js, that 
"m r s wilson is allowed by the town to retail drink to those 
that have occasion untill this time twelve months She 
attending the Law theirin." In 1703, Ebenezer Gilbert, 
another son of Jonathan, acquired a lot next north of the 
homestead. He established there "a publique house of 
entertainment." In 1718 he sold to Benjamin Smith, who 
continued the business. At an early date, a tavern was 
located on the north side of the square. In 1708, Jonathan 
Arnold bought part of the prison lot from Daniel Clark, 
and was licensed to keep a public house. 

About 1760, Hezekiah Collyer occupied the home north of 
the Court House, which his father Captain Hezekiah Collyer 
had bought in 1739. The house had been built by James 
Church about 1722. Between it and the prison lot, was the 
homestead of Deacon John Edwards. The younger Col- 
lyer kept a tavern and inn until his death in 1768. His 
widow Jannet Collyer succeeded him. Her inn was well- 
known during the Revolutionary War, and quite popular, 
being without any suspicion of tory sentiment. Here, 
General Washington was entertained. After William Col- 



238 THE COLOXIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Iyer had kept this tavern several years, Frederick Bull, in 
1788, established there the "City Coffee House." 

On the west side of the meeting-house yard, where the 
Phoenix Bank building now stands, Samuel Pelton was 
licensed to sell liquors in 1747. He sold the property in 
1751, to Samuel Smith of Middletown and David Bull of 
Westfield. The latter was licensed about the time of this 
purchase. He acquired the entire property in 1757, and 
added other tracts later. Here David Bull kept the famous 
"Bunch of Grapes" inn for many years. Cotton Murray 
also kept an inn, in 1783, at the sign of the "Globe," on the 
west side of Main Street, where others succeeded him. 

One of the most popular locations for taverns in early 
Hartford was near the ferry. It is not unlikely that Thomas 
Cadwell, the first ferryman, kept an inn at the Scott-Ford 
homestead, after it passed into his hands. His son, Sergeant 
Edward Cadwell, who inherited the Stebbins homestead, 
was licensed in 1706 "to keep a house of entertainment 
for strangers." He did so for years. Daniel Messenger, 
Timothy Bigelow, Nathaniel Pease and Benjamin Bigelow, 
were successively licensed to sell liquors when they kept 
the ferry. On the east side of the river, "about thirty 
rods from the ferry," Widow Dorothy Burnham in 1753, 
and for several years thereafter, entertained travellers, who 
were hindered in crossing the river. The Pitkin tavern 
answered the same purpose, and, to some extent, Gideon 
Benjamin's. During the Revolutionary War, that of 
William and Jannet Knox, on the west side near the landing- 
place was the most popular. 

On the South-side, also, there were several early inns or 
taverns. Joseph Mygatt was licensed in 1656. He lived 
near the present Capitol. In 1707, William Worthington 
received a license. He was probably then living on a place, 
which he bought in 1709, from Samuel Gilbert. It was 
located on the west side of a highway, then leading south- 
ward from Wyllys Street. Amos Hinsdale kept a tavern 
in this neighborhood as early as 1744, and for many years 
afterwards. He was located on the east side of the South 
Green. An advertisement in 1789, refers to Joseph Ash- 
ton as carrying on weaving "in the house where Amos 



SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 239 

Hinsdale formerly kept a tavern at the south end of the 
city." Another public house of note before and during 
the Revolution, was the "Old Red Tavern," which formerly 
stood near the south-east corner of the Capitol grounds. 
Israel Seymour secured this property, in two tracts, in 1773 
and 1775. On the latter there were "edifices," probably 
erected by the grantor, Jonathan Seymour. In these or a 
new building, Captain Israel Seymour kept the red tavern. 
It was a favorite resort for soldiers during the war. Here, 
the ministers were entertained at the installation of Rev. 
Benjamin Boardman. On August 16, 1784, Captain Sey- 
mour was killed by lightning, as he stood in his doorway. 1 

The most famous inn on the South-side was that of 
Moses Butler. This was located on the south-west corner 
of Main and Elm streets. It had formerly been the home- 
stead of Samuel Howard, who died in 1750. In the distri- 
bution of the estate in 1754, there was set off "To Sarah the 
wife of Moses Butler the north eaft part of the Homestead 
with the Building thereon." The south part was distrib- 
uted to the only son, Samuel Howard, from whom it 
passed, in 1788, to Norman Butler. The entire frontage 
was about nine rods. In 1754, there were two houses upon 
this property, an "old house" and a "new house," appar- 
ently connected, or not far apart. That year Moses Butler 
was licensed. He kept this inn for thirty years, and perhaps 
longer. It was a popular meeting place. The physicians 
and surgeons of Hartford County met there in 1784, and 
perhaps found it a convenient resort earlier. This was 
eight years before the formation of the county society. It 
is said that a number of elderly men were accustomed to 
gather there evenings, to learn the news. Each of them 
was allowed to spend seven coppers for half a mug of flip, 
and no more. They were called the "Seven Copper Club." 
Landlord Butler was very particular about sending fre- 
quenters home at nine o'clock. 

There were, also, outlying inns in various sections of the 
town. One was at John Seymour's, on the road to Far- 
mington. Captain Timothy Seymour was the host in later 

1 Dr. Parker's Hist, of the Second Church, p. 156; The Connecticut Courant, Aug. 
17, 1784; The Hartford Times, Oct. 3, 1894. 



240 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

colonial times, and was succedeed in 1779 by his son, Nor- 
man Seymour. The well-known Wadsworth inn was on 
the Simsbury road. It was kept by successive members 
of that family. On the east side of the river, Thomas 
Olcott, Ezekiel Webster, Russell Woodbridge, Benjamin 
Cheney, Gideon Benjamin and others, kept inns. Taverns, 
as places where liquor was sold, multiplied during the French 
wars. In 1756, there were no less than fourteen such 
resorts in Hartford. 

The forefathers, of course, brought with them the drink- 
ing customs of England. Their experience here is interest- 
ing. It soon became necessary to prohibit sales to Indians. 
In 1643, they forbade all sales by unlicensed persons. This 
action was based distinctly on current abuses. Within a 
few years, these increased among persons of the inferior 
sort. A law regulating and restricting the use of liquor 
was enacted in 1647. It was aimed at the inn. One-half 
hour was the limit of time an inhabitant could spend in 
drinking at a "victualing house." He was also restricted 
as to the amount of liquor. It was forbidden to sell drink 
to be taken from the premises, except on an order from the 
master of a family or an allowed inhabitant. In the Code 
of 1650 some fine distinctions were made to prevent excess. 
For being drunk, so as to be bereaved or disabled in under- 
standing, speech or gesture, the fine was ten shillings; for 
drinking excessively — that is more than a half pint of 
wine at one time — it was three shillings four pence; for 
continued tippling, it was two shillings six pence; and for 
imbibing at unseasonable times, or after nine o'clock at 
night, it was five shillings. Persons were actually fined 
under one or more of these counts. Other regulations were 
made later. Some liquors, such as Barbadoes rum, called 
"Kill Devil" were discriminated against. A tariff was 
levied upon all importations. During King Philip's War, 
when a general reformation of morals was inaugurated, the 
laws were more rigidly enforced. They failed to prevent 
excess; and there was always more or less illegal selling. 
Their drinking customs, which English settlers were wont 
to consider harmless in moderation, were found to be de- 
moralizing. One reason was the enticing charm that lingered 



SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 241 

about their inns, as the principal resorts of their social life. 
Doubtless, their general Puritan strictness in other matters 
tended to increase this. They had difficulty, also, in exclud- 
ing those games that were customary in English taverns. 
In 1650, there was a law forbidding "shuffle board." This 
was amplified, in 1656, to include cards and dice. A more 
stringent law was enacted in 1686, because of the increase 
of such amusements. It specified gaming, singing, dancing 
and all riotous conduct in houses of public entertainment. 
The offenders in all such particulars were, of course, com- 
paratively few, and, judged by the court records, they were 
mostly of the lower classes. In reputable inns such viola- 
tions of the laws were not permitted. There is abundant 
testimony as to the decorum with which these were con- 
ducted, and the respectable standing of their landlords. 
President Dwight wrote of them in his Travels as follows: 
"The best old-fashioned New England inns were superior 
to any of the modern ones which I have seen. They were 
at less pains to furnish a great variety of food. Yet the 
variety was ample. The food was always of the best 
quality; the beds were excellent; the house and all its 
appendages were in the highest degree clean and neat; 
the cookery was remarkably good; and the stable was not 
less hospitable than the house. The family in the mean 
time were possessed of principle, and received you with 
the kindness and attention of friends. Your baggage was 
as safe as in your own house. If you were sick, you were 
nursed and befriended as in your own family. No tavern- 
haunters, gamblers, or loungers were admitted, any more 
than in a well ordered private habitation; and as little 
noise was allowed." 1 

Their military organization and trainings also furthered 
social relations. John Adams included training-days among 
the factors that made New England. The church of colonial 
times had no social aims. It afforded little opportunity 
for acquaintance, except as attendants conversed between 
services. Gatherings of young people were looked upon 
with suspicion. There were no public charities in which 

1 Dwight's Travels, IV: 249. 



242 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

women could be associated. Acquaintance among them 
was fostered in their homes, at the spinning-wheel and 
other industrial pursuits. The tea-drinkings of later times 
gave them a better social occasion. From the first, however, 
the custom of visiting with friends within the town and 
abroad was general. Colonial dames frequently went 
visiting on horseback. In 1651 John Wilcox provided in 
his will that his wife should have the use of his mare, "to 
ride either to Windsor, to Wethersfield or to Hartford, or 
to The Sermon." To that end he gave her his "pannell 
and bridle." As entertainment in their homes was very 
simple, and required no advance preparation, the inter- 
change of social life among the young people was easily 
effected, and hence quite general. Corn-huskings and 
apple-parings were its natural opportunities. For the most 
part the daily occupation of the men gave them no chance 
for social intercourse. They were a hard-working race. 
Sunrise and sunset marked the limits of their working-day 
out of doors. By candle-light or the blaze of the open fire, 
they fashioned various implements, tools and articles for 
home or farm use. It required an occasion to get the men 
together. That was what the training-day did. In early 
years, the train-band demanded their attendance. Few 
were exempt. Later, the various military companies did 
the same. Nor was the honor of being a captain, lieutenant, 
ensign or sergeant, lightly regarded. 

The General Court ordered the formation of a train-band 
in each plantation, in 1636. Every soldier kept his arms 
and ammunition at home. Once a month they had a train- 
ing-day. Then their arms were inspected and they were 
drilled. Absence, without lawful excuse, was punishable 
by a fine of five shillings. After the Pequot War, Major 
John Mason was made the commander-in-chief to train 
the soldiers of each plantation. Their practice in 1650 was 
embodied in a law on "Military Affaires." It provided 
that all men between sixteen and sixty years of age should 
bear arms, magistrates and church officers excepted, unless 
exempted by the court. Then trainings were held in 
March, April, May, September, October and November. 
In 1654, a general muster of all their military companies 



SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 243 

was ordered for every second year. They had pikemen, 
who wore corselets of wadded cotton for protection against 
Indian arrows, and musketeers, who carried bandoleers and 
rests. A troop was organized in 1657, which came to high 
dignity and usefulness as dragoons. From these beginnings, 
they developed a military system, which was the subject of 
much legislation during colonial times. It attained no 
mean proportions for that age. Hartford's train-band was 
given the precedence over all others in 1662. Later, this 
was divided into North-side and South-side companies. 
An East-side company was organized in 1698, and another 
in the West Division in 1714. When an enumeration was 
made in 1680, there were in Hartford County 835 trained 
soldiers and a troop of 60 horsemen. 

Only imagine what must have transpired on a training- 
day in the old town. At eight o'clock in the morning, when 
the drum sounded, the soldiers were assembled in the meet- 
ing-house yard. The very appearance of the boy of sixteen 
and the man of sixty was significant. There might have 
been three generations of one family in the ranks. Some 
fathers were there with an array of stalwart sons. There 
was a roll-call by the clerk. Woe to him who was tardy or 
missing. Then, perhaps, their arms were inspected — old 
flint-locks, some of them used doubtless in English wars; 
pikes like those of ancient guardsmen, and swords of various 
patterns. Hours were passed in instruction and drilling. 
Then there was very likely a review in front of the inn, 
where the Governor and some of the magistrates had con- 
vened. Yet all this was only the formality of the day. 
After they were dismissed, there was time for feasting and 
merriment, and much of it, too, in homes and taverns to 
which they scattered. On the morning of such a day in 
1737, Parson Wadsworth wrote in his diary, "Publick 
diversions often occasion much sin. I wish it may not be 
y e case with this." Be that as it may, they doubtless en- 
joyed the day. The older men discussed their farms, herds 
and crops; the younger men their work, play and the girls, 
quite as they would now. The occasion was, of course, 
highly useful. It kept alive the military spirit and generated 
patriotism. Still it won and held its place in public esteem 



244 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

throughout colonial times largely because of its social 
features. 

In this respect, election day in Hartford was not alto- 
gether unlike it. The political significance of a gathering 
of the freemen in early times, augmented public interest in 
the day. It gave the occasion a dignity that did not per- 
tain to a military training. This feature suffered little or 
no decline with passing years. The description a certain 
visitor gives of this day in 1807, would as well have answered 
for earlier times. 1 He details the arrival of Governor Trum- 
bull from the eastward, on horseback, his reception by the 
horse and foot guards at the river, their escort of him to 
his lodgings, the procession of officials, clergy and repre- 
sentatives the next morning to the South Church, where 
the election sermon was preached, the dinner at the inn, the 
meeting of the General Assembly, the inauguration and 
the election ball. Election day, this writer declares, was a 
holiday in the state, as was the rest of the week. Families 
then exchanged visits and treated their guests with election 
cake. 

The social life of Hartford in colonial times may seem to 
one who considers it superficially to exhibit little change. 
The warp of its fabric was very much the same. Inns, 
shops, markets and other resorts continued throughout this 
period, with no great alteration. They had election and 
training-days, corn-huskings and tea-drinkings that had run 
an uninterrupted course of fashion. Still the woof of the 
fabric was gradually changing. One generation was fol- 
lowed by another, of a different sort, and each looked 
askance upon its successor. It is a very difficult matter to 
trace this transformation of society with our scanty ma- 
terials. We know, however, that it had gone so far in 1675 
as to demand a general reformation movement in New 
England. King Philip's War was thought to be a divine 
judgment upon a backslidden people. The ministers tes- 
tified against a multitude of provoking sins, and uttered 
ominous prophecies of dreadful things that might be ex- 
pected. New laws against some social vices were enacted. 

1 Kendall's Travels, pp. 1 ff. 



SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 245 

The magistrates enforced them in the courts with conse- 
crated zeal. In the election sermon of 1674, Rev. James 
Fitch referred to the "Many evil Cuftomes and Degenerate 
Manners" of that day. The context shows that he had in 
mind the contrast between them and those of earlier times, 
for he distinctly reminded his hearers of the settlement 
of the river towns. There were only a few of the orig- 
inal planters then living, some of whom were doubtless 
in his audience. How apparent the contrast must have 
been to them! The young people about them were unlike 
their grandfathers. Puritanism had changed. There was 
a difference in ideas, language, manners and dress. Still 
those youth grew to old age and passed through the same 
experience. The middle of the eighteenth century found 
the wealth of Hartford materially increased. Those families 
that had lived in the town for more than a century, assumed 
quite naturally that social standing which time alone can 
give. More attention was paid to education. Social 
refinements and culture were more highly regarded. Wealth 
had enabled some to escape much of the drudgery of life. 
The houses were better, their furnishings more luxurious. 
Rugs had begun to cover floors that had once been sanded. 
Chairs supplied the places of forms and stools. China had 
displaced pewter. New fashions of dress had come in. 
The elegance of some, when arrayed in their new French 
styles, was shocking; but the "granny" forgot how she 
had given a similar shock in her day. When The Connecti- 
cut Courant began to advertise what was for sale in the 
shops, fashions seemed to change more rapidly. The 
newspaper made the people aware of the arrival of a new 
assortment of dry-goods. Merchants offered "English and 
India goods" received by the latest ship. Sally Tryper had 
"female aprons imported from Europe" in her shop. Caleb 
Bull was more conservative. He had "beaver hatts made 
in Hartford." What a sensation there must have been in 
the old town in 1775, when Mary Gabiel opened as a "man- 
tua-maker and milliner from Paris." Society surely moved 
very fast after the French wars; and it might have been 
arrayed in cloth of gold in a few years, had it not been for 
the Revolutionary War. Then the men went back to their 



246 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

old leather breeches, and the women, like Faith Trumbull, 
cast their scarlet cloaks upon the altar of freedom. 

The dress of people during colonial times is, indeed, a 
fair exponent of social conditions. Inventories do not, of 
course, enable us to trace in detail the changing styles, 
but they furnish a reliable and accurate means of contrast- 
ing different periods. Jewelry, for instance, was very rare 
in early times. We have not met with any among the 
Puritan founders of Hartford, though some may have had 
seal rings. In 1662, Casper Varlett, or Judith his wife, 
had "A gold Ring w th a Diamond," but they were Dutch, 
and she was accused of being a witch. Doubtless the ring 
belonged to her. John Crow, a grandson of Elder William 
Goodwin, died at sea in 1667. He had several gold rings; 
but he was engaged in trade with the West Indies and likely 
to secure such, as sea-captains often did. Major James 
Richards also had "gold rings," at his death in 1680. His 
granddaughter, in 1759 had diamonds and much valuable 
jewelry. The great granddaughter of Rev. Thomas Hooker, 
in 1765 had a "gold Necklace & Locket," "gold Buttons," 
"4 gold Rings" and " 1 p r Stone Earings sett in gold." We 
do not suspect that Madam Susanna Hooker had any such 
possessions, or her descendants for two generations. Early 
silver-smiths were mostly engaged in making and selling 
silver pieces for household use. The jewellers of later 
colonial times, like Ebenezer Austin, advertised, as a matter 
of course, "cyphered stone ear-rings set in gold," and other 
jewelry. 

It would surely be a fascinating amusement, and yield a 
most interesting exhibit in water colors, if the articles of 
dress left by certain colonial characters were used to clothe 
their imaginary figures, as children dress up paper dolls. 
We should then see the early Puritan in contrast with his 
colonial descendants. It would surprise us to find how colors 
displaced the conventional black; how soon those, who 
were able, laid aside homespun; how much the men thought 
of a best broadcloth suit, with a fancy waistcoat; and how 
velvet and silks exerted their charm over the women. 
Unfortunately, in most inventories of the first generation, 
the value of "wearing apparel" is given as one item, and 



SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 247 

sometimes the contents of the purse is added. The clothing 
of an early planter seldom exceeded £10 in value; and that 
sum seems high for what he had. Here is the trader, who 
ventured first into the wilderness, clothed in a "Portingale 
cap," "A Jackette & p r re of breches," probably leather, 
"stockings & shues." He could have worn "a pair of 
Indean stockins," and if he wanted a coat, he could have 
put on a short one of "darnixe," or one made of either " Catte 
skins" or "Racoone skins." An original settler of honored 
name left only "a Coate, a Jergen, 2 dubletts and a p r re 
of breeches." This seems to be a meagre wardrobe; but 
the value given in inventories, even to old garments, indi- 
cates that all articles of dress were included, except of 
course those in which the decedent was buried. Another 
planter of good means had "3 suits of apparrell, w th hatts, 
stocking & shues," valued at £13 5s., which is above the 
average. The conclusion is warranted that the clothes of 
most of the founders of Hartford, who died within twenty- 
five years, were of the plainest sort and coarse but strong 
material. Their work clothes were usually of home manu- 
facture. The skins of wild animals were commonly used in 
winter, and the men all wore breeches of tanned deerskin. 
Ministers, magistrates and men of social standing had 
clothes suitable for public occasions. In fact, one of their 
early laws restrained excess of apparel by those of inferior 
rank, and the constables were authorized to warn any who 
ignored these proprieties. 1 John Baysey was an original 
proprietor, and one of the settlers of 1636. He was a weaver 
by trade, industrious and thrifty. When he died in 1671, 
his inventory was of creditable size. His apparel is given 
in detail, and illustrates both Puritan simplicity and the 
increased supply of clothes among such as lived to that day. 
He left the following wardrobe: "cloath suite, cloath 
cloake, surge suit, Jacket, doublett & Breeches, cloath 
coat, peniston wascoat, Leatheren Jacket & white cotton 
drawers, payre of Buttons, payre of Gloves, woofteed 
stockings, yarne stockings, low crownd Hatt, High crownd 
Hatt, payre of bootes, payre of shoes, cotten & lining 
drawers, two shirts, Bands & Handkerchiefs." 

1 Conn. Col. Rcc, I: 64. 



248 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

One characteristic of the reformation movement, was an 
attempt to check what was considered extravagance in 
dress, then beginning to appear. The General Court, in 
1676, declared that it was "unbecoming a wilderness con- 
dition and the profession of the gospell, whereby the riseing 
generation is in danger to be corrupted." l Specific reference 
was made to wearing lace and buttons of gold or silver, silk 
ribbons, or other superfluous trimmings. Offenders were 
to be listed at £150 and taxed accordingly; but magistrates, 
public officers of the Colony and their families were excepted, 
as also commissioned officers of the military. No particular 
application of this law in Hartford has been discovered, nor 
does it seem to have hindered long the tendencies of the 
times. Little by little, the fashions came to permit colors 
for both sexes. This departure was furthered by the in- 
creasing use of foreign goods. Before the middle of the 
next century, the ultimate outcome was apparent; and the 
development of colonial dress in later years was only a mat- 
ter of time, under prevailing social conditions. Of these 
fashions, the inventories furnish many interesting details. 
How elegantly Samuel Edwards could be attired by an 
artist. He was a brother of Rev. Timothy Edwards, and 
died in 1732, leaving a large estate. Of coats he had the 
following: "loofe Coat of broad Cloth," "Streight bodyed 
Coat of broad Cloth," "Streight bodyed Coat duroy," 
"Loofe Coat of Duffels," "Streight bodyed Coat of fustian." 
He had waistcoats of fustian, broadcloth, black flowered 
silk and white linen. Of course, he had a pair of leather 
breeches; but he also had several of fustian and broadcloth. 
He could wear black and light colored silk stockings, worsted 
stockings, dark colored, light colored or "blewifh," or "old 
yarn stockings." He had plenty of the best Holland linen 
shirts. According to the occasion for which he was dressed, 
he would wear his "Noted wigg," "best bob wig" or "Na- 
turall white wig." His hat would be his "beaver"; his 
stock of white muslin; and he had a pair of white gloves. 
But what would his grandfather, William Edwards, have 
said of him? We can dimly see Rev. Daniel Wadsworth, 
who died in 1747, dressed in his "black suit," with black 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, II: iSS. 



SOCIAL RESORTS AND LIFE 249 

silk stockings; silver buckles on his knee-breeches and on 
his shoes; a stock about his neck, and a periwig on his head. 
He seems to have been an example of ministerial proprieties. 
Still, he also had a blue coat and a drugget vest. The 
inventory of Rev. Samuel Woodbridge of East Hartford, 
who died the previous year, discloses the fact that he left 
no black suit, though he was probably buried in black. In 
the pulpit he wore a gown. His coat was of "blew broad 
cloth," and his "great coat" was blue. His best waistcoat 
was of "black silk Damafk." His knee-breeches were 
ornamented with silver and he had "gold sieve buttons." 
The blue coat had found favor with gentlemen before 1700; 
and clothes of a grey, butternut, or cinnamon color were 
sometimes worn. 

One of Hartford's leaders of fashion, in her day, must 
have been Madam Elizabeth Wilson. She had a remarkable 
career in the matrimonial field, her fourth or fifth husband 
being Mr. Phineas Wilson of Hartford, who died in 1692. l 
As a woman of rare business ability, she left abundant evi- 
dence. When she died in 1727, her estate amounted to 
£7154 4s. 2d. Her wardrobe was valued at £46 17s. 
The inventory of it proves that in her time, and probably 
some years before her death, more costly dress goods had 
come into fashion among the ladies. She had gowns of 
"black Sattin," "mixed white and black Silk crape," "flow- 
ered Silk lined with read Silk" and "padifway" (paduasoy). 
The use of silk in Hartford for hoods, aprons, petticoats 
and cloaks, had become fashionable in the latter part of the 
seventeenth century, though comparatively few could afford 
it. The wardrobes of certain ladies, who doubtless had an 
acquaintance with Boston or New York society, indicate 
that they introduced some of these newer fashions. The 
best wardrobe we have met with to serve in measuring the 
advance in dress among Hartford ladies in later colonial 
times, is that of Mistress Mary Hooker, spinster. She was 
the daughter of Mr. Nathaniel Hooker, and died in 1765. 
Her gowns were of "dove Col d Damask," "Light Blue 
Damask," "Blk padusoy w th Tale," "Strip d Lutestring," 
"dark ground Chintz" "moufe Col d gr d Chintz," "Light 

1 Manwaring's Hartford Probate Records, I: 522; II: 619-624. 



250 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Sprig d Chintz" "Blk Bombazein," "green Rufset," with a 
dozen others that were of less costly material, or had seen 
longer service. She had a "Blk Velvet cloak," a "Red 
cloak" and a "Blk Everlasting Cardinell." Her hoods 
represented the fashions of that day. They were of "white 
Sarfenett," "Blk gauze," "Blk Velvet with a Lace," "Silk 
w th gauze Border," and "flow d Blk gauze." She also had 
a "womans Blk Hatt w th Lace," and an "old plain Blk 
Bonnet," not to mention a "Blk flow d gauze Shade" and 
"2 Lac d pinners." Besides her black shoes, she had pairs 
of "Blue Rufsel," "Brocaded Silk" and "yellow Damask." 
Ladies of that period were fond of handkerchiefs, in which 
their skill at needlework could display itself. Mistress 
Hooker had several such. She had two girdles of silver and 
one of "Blue silver," ivory fans, jewelry already referred to 
and " 1 Blk Velvet mask," for the mention of which we 
crave the lady's pardon. No doubt she had graced many a 
social gaiety elsewhere in her younger days, for she entered 
the period of "laced caps" and "temple spectacles" before 
she turned over her wardrobe to two of the town's foremost 
men to be inventoried. 



CHAPTER XVI 
EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 

The claim that our Puritan ancestors esteemed education, 
rests not so much upon their own attainments, as upon the 
honor in which they held it. They saw the relation of 
learning to the full stature of a man as a responsible being. 
It was valued as an avenue by which to reach the altitudes 
of religious faith. That trait was sure to manifest itself 
in a system of education. In the early pages of their records, 
therefore, one expects to meet with some vote that declares 
their purpose to educate the generations for whom they had 
won the wilderness. 

On December 6, 1642, the founders of Hartford passed the 
following vote: "It is agreed that thurte pownd a yeer shall 
be seatled vpon the schoole by the towne for efer." Thus 
they laid the corner-stone of an edifice, upon which succeed- 
ing generations have never ceased to build. This vote 
seems to have been related to some special undertaking, not 
fully disclosed. It could not have been the beginning of 
their interest in education. Schools were not then, either 
here or in the mother country, necessary tenants of school- 
houses. The teacher made the school wherever he gathered 
his pupils. Such was the case with many ministers, and 
several of that profession were numbered among the early 
schoolmasters of the town. At an early date, most likely 
in 1637 or 1638, John Higginson came to Hartford. He 
was the son of Rev. Francis Higginson of Salem, and had 
once been a pupil in the Grammar School in Leicester, 
England. His widowed mother had lands allotted to her 
here in the plantation divisions. She settled in New Haven, 
where she died in 1639, leaving eight children. Although 
John Higginson was nominally the chaplain of Saybrook 
fort for several years, his duties may not have required a 
continuous residence there. "I was sometime a school- 



252 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

master in Hartford," he afterwards wrote, "where I enjoyed 
the ministry of that godly man, Mr. Hooker, and of Mr. 
Stone." Cotton Mather says, "He first taught a grammar 
school and then betook himself unto the study of divinity." l 
Thus Rev. John Higginson was the town's first schoolmaster. 
Probably he was a student of divinity under Mr. Hooker, 
his father's friend, at the same time. We have no clue, 
however, as to the place or pupils of his school. It may 
have been kept in the minister's home. His later life in 
Guilford and Salem fulfilled the promise of his youth. 
He died in 1708, aged 92 years. After him Rev. William 
Collins was engaged, but we do not know exactly when or 
how long he taught. He had been, says Hubbard, "an 
hopeful professor, and preacher also privately, at Gloucester 
in England, till he came to be seduced there, being carried 
about with one of the female sex, and of familistical prin- 
ciples." 2 He went later to Barbadoes, where he preached 
for a time, and did some good; but when persecution arose, 
he, with others, came to New Haven in the summer of 1640. 
Mr. Collins "was entertained first at Hartford, to teach 
school." At that time he was above suspicion of heresy, 
but, through a follower of Mrs. Ann Hutchinson, he became 
infected with her opinions. One morning he left Hartford, 
without disclosing his reasons or destination. That was the 
end of his school. He went, it appears, to Aquiday, where he 
embraced Mrs. Hutchinson's views and married her daugh- 
ter. In 1641 he was arrested in Boston, being found to be a 
seducer of the faithful, and was held for some months to 
pay a heavy fine. He was then released and banished. 3 
In 1643, he was killed by the Indians, with other members 
of the Hutchinson family. 

Neither of these early teachers are thought to have taught 
in a school-house. A single room in some private house 
would have served the ambitions of those first years. The 
town's votes give us no record of any school-house in Hart- 
ford before 1643; nor should we look for any then, except 

1 Mather's Magnalia, I: 365. 

2 Hubbard's History, pp. 340-345; Winthrop's History, II: 10. 

3 Mass. Col. Rec, I: 336, 340, 344; Winthrop's History, II: 46-48. 



EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 253 

as some portion of a private house was used for that purpose. 
In an inventory of the town's common property that year, 
the first item is, "2 great gunns: & Carriages & other things 
belonging to y m in the schoole howse." 2 Moreover, at a 
town meeting, in April 1643, an engagement was made with 
Mr. William Andrews to "teach the children in the Scoole 
one yere next ensewing from the 25 of march, 1643," for which 
service the town guaranteed him £16 a year. He was 
expected to collect from the parents what he could of this 
sum, at the rate of twenty shillings for each pupil. It is 
evident that no more than sixteen pupils were expected to 
attend, and probably not that number, as the town agreed 
to pay the balance. Where was this school-house — the 
first of record at least in Hartford? It has been claimed 
that "it was the usage to set school-houses in the highway, 
and thus the location was not a matter of record." 2 Such 
buildings, it is true, were sometimes erected on public 
property, and, in these cases, there was no deed of land; 
but it would be unusual for this to be done, without any 
vote of the town or the appointment of a committee to 
locate the building. In this instance, it is unnecessary to 
assume such an exception. A lot was secured by the town, 
probably in 1642, upon which a house afterwards owned by 
it, was located. This is believed to have been their first 
school-house. It was called the "town house," as in a later 
instance where the building was certainly the school-house. 
That is the reason the place has not been long since identified. 
This lot was originally the home-lot of William Hills. It 
was situated on the southwest corner of our present Gover- 
nor and Sheldon streets. In the earliest times, it was on 
their main highway running north and south, and was just 
south of the fordway across the Little River. This was a 
convenient location for both "Sides." The lot was recorded 
to William Hills, as an original distribution of the plantation, 
and comprised one acre and a quarter. 3 Jonathan Gilbert 
bought the southern part, which was recorded to him about 
1645. 4 The town acquired the northern portion where the 
house stood. This may have been at first by rental or 

1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 68. 3 Original Distribution, p. 262. 

2 Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 224. 4 Ibid., pp. 363, 382. 



254 THE COLOMAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

purchase, of which we have no record, and is thought to 
have been in 1642. There is evidence, however, that this 
lot and house were owned later by the town. On March 
22, 1658-9, the townsmen were ordered to "take Care of 
y e Towne hous that was goodman hills : and repair the hous 
or fenc upone the towns acount," and, on November 22nd 
following, they were made a committee, with the addition 
of John Talcott [Sen.] and John Barnard, "to sell the Towne 
House." l This they did on December 7th, the grantee 
being Joseph Smith. 2 There was then upon this lot of about 
one acre a "messuage or tenement," doubtless the same that 
William Hills had built for his own use. It could have 
been none other than the "schoole howse" mentioned in 
1643, part of which had been used for storing their great 
guns. There was nothing strange in this. Their meeting- 
houses were used for similar purposes. In the author's 
opinion, the acquisition of William Hills's lot by the town 
in 1642, was the undertaking that led to the appropriation 
of thirty pounds as above mentioned. This was the place 
where William Andrews opened the school in 1643, and it 
was ample to accommodate the sixteen pupils which set the 
limit of their educational expectations. The inventory of 
Joseph Smith, who died in 1689, indicates that his house 
was of the usual one story type. It had two rooms on the 
first floor, and in one of these, the school could easily have 
been conducted. 

This was a "grammar school," and was supposed to 
prepare youth for the college life of those days. It was the 
successor to the venture of Higginson and Collins. There 
were also in those times private schools of a lower grade. 
At least one such school was kept in Hartford — that of 
Widow Mary Betts, doubtless in a room of her own house, 
on Seth Grant's original lot. This was on the east side of 
Trumbull Street, near the Little River. "Goody Betts 
the school dame" died in 1647. Her pupils were young 
children, whom she taught the simple lessons of the "horn 

1 Hartford Town Votes, 1: 124, 125. 

2 Original Distribution, p. 100. The date of the deed to Joseph Smith was 
copied as Dec. 7, 1669. It should have been 1659. Several of the grantors were 
deceased in 1669, and Joseph Smith owed the town £50 for the property in 1664. 
Hartford Town Votes, I: 146. 



EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 255 

book." Instruction of this kind was also given by parents; 
and the catechism was a means not only of religious train- 
ing, but also of elementary education in their households. 

Our next information concerning the town's educational 
facilities is derived from a vote of February 1, 1648-9. 
As it is of some length, and is the only action recorded under 
that date, we conjecture that the meeting had been called 
expressly to consider their school. This record rehearses 
"the necessity es of the Towne and the desires of many for 
some provision to be made for the keeping of a Scoole with 
better conveniency then hitherto hath beene attayned, the 
want whereof hath beene both vncomfortable to those who 
haue beene imployed in that service, [and] prejudiciall to 
the worke vnder hand, w ch is lookt vppon as conducing 
much to the good both of the present age and of the future." 1 
This proves that there was then in Hartford a progressive 
party in educational matters, and there is evidence to show 
that Governor Edward Hopkins was one of the leaders of 
it. The reflection on their old school-house situated near 
his home, and its unfitness for both teacher and pupils, is 
unmistakable. This reference is made more pointed by 
their conclusion to provide £40 by a rate, not sufficient, it 
was admitted, to attain the end of building a new school- 
house; but "in case any other shall make such an addition 
to the sayd summe that the worke may be carryed on and 
finished, eyther with tymber or bricke," the town further 
agreed "that the buildinge soe to be erected shall not be 
diverted to any other use or imployment but in a way of 
scoolinge without the consent of the partyes that shall con- 
tribute to y e [sum] more than their rates." We can put no 
other construction upon this record than that one or more 
inhabitants considered a room in a private house, part of 
which was used as an arsenal, beneath the dignity of and in- 
adequate for a town school, and some party or parties had 
given encouragement of erecting a grammar school building, 
by the payment of a sum in addition to the rate to be levied 
by the town. Some part of what the town promised, is lost 
in an undecipherable record; but it was evidently agreed 
that, if the new school-house was built, they would carry 

1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 85, 86. 



256 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

on their educational work with greater diligence. It was 
common then to supplement rates with additional subscrip- 
tions for a public enterprise, and the town had received such 
assurances. This agitation was the beginning of a move- 
ment, which at first promised great results, but no immediate 
action was taken. 

In May, 1650, Edward Hopkins being then Governor of 
the Colony, their Code of Laws was established. It con- 
tained an emphatic declaration concerning the education 
of their children in the English tongue and the catechism. 
"And further," it was declared "that all Parents and Masters 
doe breed and bring vp theire Children and Apprentices in 
some honest lawfull [calling,] labour or imployment, either 
in husbandry, or some other trade proffitable for themselves 
and the Common wealth, if they will not nor cannott traine 
them vp in Learning to fitt them for higher imployments." ! 
A similar law was made in Massachusetts in 1642. The 
above code also contained a law concerning the relation of 
towns to schools, enacted in Massachusetts in 1647. It 
required in every township of fifty householders the appoint- 
ment of a teacher to instruct the children in writing and 
reading, and in every township of one hundred householders 
the setting up of a grammar school to fit youth for the uni- 
versity, for which aid had already been proposed. 2 This 
law became the foundation of Connecticut's early educa- 
tional system, and continued on its statute books until 1792. 

The school in Hartford, so far as we are aware, went on 
as before in their arsenal school-house, with such improve- 
ments as could be afforded. Mr. William Andrews was 
teaching it in 1648. On February 1, 1649-50, Mr. Samuel 
Fitch, who was a son of Joseph Fitch and a nephew of Rev. 
James Fitch of Saybrook and Norwich, presumably began 
an engagement for three years, "to teach such children as 
shall be thought fitt to be taught by him." To all appear- 
ances, he fell out by the wayside, for, on November 19, 1650, 
it was ordered that Mr. Andrews should keep school for the 
"present year," beginning the 29th of the previous Sep- 
tember. In 1651, Mr. Fitch married Susanna, the widow 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 521. Cf. Mass. Col. flee, II: 6, 9. 

2 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 112, 139. 



EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 257 

of Mr. William Whiting. He died in 1659, and was a 
friend of the school to the last. Meanwhile the town, in 
furtherance of its project, granted a rate of £20 "towards 
the erection of the schoole howse," and, on January 12, 
1651-2, it voted to raise £40 to be put in the hands of 
Elder William Goodwin for the same purpose, he being 
desired to take the care of the work. A year later the town 
was in debt to him for thirty shillings "w * 1 hee payd for y e 
scoole house." Then the town votes disclose no more of 
the matter for several years. We know, however, that Mr. 
Goodwin and some others were endeavoring meanwhile 
to secure a certain lot upon which to erect a school-house, 
and that the interest of Governor Hopkins had been suffi- 
ciently engaged to express a decided preference for this 
particular lot as a desirable location. It was the original 
home-lot of Samuel Greenhill, situated west of our present 
Main Street, between the Little River and Buckingham 
Street, and, if it had been secured, the Hopkins Gram- 
mar School, amply endowed, might now be located there. 
Samuel Greenhill died soon after his removal to Hartford, 
leaving a son Thomas, and a daughter Rebecca, who married 
John Shepard of Cambridge. His widow, Rebecca Green- 
hill, married Jeremy Adams, by whom she had six children. 
In this home the family lived until Adams bought the Steele 
lot, as elsewhere stated. Thomas Greenhill died in 1653, 
and the rights of the heirs involved this lot in litigation for 
many years. 1 It had advantages as a location for a school- 
house intended to serve both divisions of the town. It 
was on a highway, which was fast increasing in importance, 
and was just south of the bridge across the riveret. That 
Governor Hopkins had favored this selection, is certain, for, 
in 1664, Mr. Goodwin wrote as follows: "We do also desire 
and request that the school house may be set upon the house 
lot which was lately in the occupation of Jeremy Adams, 
where our worthy friend did much desire that a school might 
be set." In 1653, Mr. Goodwin, still intent upon carrying 
out the earlier votes of the town, sought to purchase this lot, 
then valued at £30, from Edward Stebbins, his fellow ex- 

1 State Archives: Private Controversies; I: 1-18; Manwaring's Hartford Probate 
Records, I: 119-121. 



258 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

editor of Thomas Greenhill's will. He encountered strong 
opposition from Jeremy Adams, whose wife had an interest 
in it. John Talcott, Samuel Fitch, John White and others, 
knowing the purpose and probably Governor Hopkins's 
intentions, urged him to sell. He refused. Delay ensued, 
and a law suit. Then on December 18, 1655, the town ap- 
pointed a committee, whose members had been approved 
by Mr. Goodwin, to take account of the money that he had 
received from the town for building a school-house, and, on 
January 23rd, following, they received authority "to end 
the Biusenes Between m r Goodwin and the Town about a 
Schole Hovs and order it as they see cause." l Deacon 
Stebbins testified in 1660 that, after Jeremy Adams had 
refused in 1654 to end the business, the town called back the 
money out of Mr. Goodwin's hands, "which they had left 
with him for the building of a school," and "he being frus- 
trated of a convenient place to sett upon resigned it into their 
hands." 2 At the same time, John Webster made a similar 
statement, saying that the town "called upon M r Goodwin 
either to have a fchool houfe built or to make return of the 
money of theirs that he had in his hands, [and] he being not 
able peaceably to enjoy the place w° h he intended to gett 
his fchool houfe in, made his return of his money to the 
town." 3 Thus a project, in which Mr. Goodwin was doubt- 
less acting to accomplish a purpose of Governor Edward 
Hopkins to found a grammar school in Hartford, failed of 
accomplishment. In view of the sequel, no one can meas- 
ure the detriment it probably was to the town of Hartford. 
During this period, also, the division in the church oc- 
curred over the candidacy of Rev. Michael Waggles worth. 
Elder Goodwin became the leader of one party, in opposition 
to Rev. Samuel Stone. That this controversy affected their 
school, is not doubted. If not otherwise, the employment 
of Mr. Davis as a teacher in 1655, must have done so. John 
Davis, son of William Davis of New Haven, had been a 
college classmate of Mr. Wigglesworth. Gookin calls him 
"one of the best accomplished persons for learning as ever 

1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 107, 109. 

2 State Archives: Private Controversies, II: 3 a. 

3 Ibid., II: 4. 



EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 259 

was bred at Harvard College." * He met an untimely death, 
when Captain James Garrett's ship was lost at sea in the 
autumn of 1657. In 1655, an engagement was made with 
him at Hartford for "preaching and schooling," which is 
not recorded in the town votes. In 1656, the balance of 
£10, due him for this service to February 7th preceding, was 
appropriated by the town. The townsmen's account, also, 
shows that this sum was "appointed to M r Dauis in the year 
1655." Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull has called attention to 
the fact that it "was contributed or advanced before Janu- 
ary 20, 1655-6, by six individuals — John Richards, John 
White, Samuel Fitch, James Steele, Francis Barnard, and 
the widow of William Gibbons — all of the South-side of 
Hartford, and three or four of whom were among the ' with- 
drawers' from the first church in 1669-70." 2 The situa- 
tion in 1655 evidently was that Mr. Davis found his support 
largely if not wholly, on the South-side, among the followers 
of Elder Goodwin. After the fulfillment of the engagement 
with Mr. Davis, we have no evidence that a grammar school 
was kept for several years. The church controversy was at 
its height, and their school interests were submerged. On 
February 15, 1655-6, a new committee had been appointed, 
consisting of two from each "Side," to act for the town, 
"either In Byinge or Bilding a Hoose for a schole Hovse." 
If they built, they were not to exceed the sum of money 
due from Mr. Goodwin. It does not appear that anything 
was done by this committee. It is believed that the school 
was entirely discontinued, for, as already stated, the towns- 
men were ordered, in 1658, to care for the town-house and, 
soon afterwards, to sell it. This view is confirmed by the 
fact that, on August 12, 1659, when John Talcott made his 
will, he bequeathed £5 "towards the mayntayning a latin 
skoll at Hartford, if any be kept here." This was the second 
legacy the town had received for that purpose, the former 
being of land at Penny wise from William Gibbons. On March 
28, 1660, liberty was granted to Mr. William Pitkin to teach 
school in Hartford. He was a lawyer, about twenty-four 

1 Gookin's "Historical Collections," in 1 Ser. Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., I: 202; 
Sibley's Harvard Graduates, I: 300, 301; Winthrop's History, I: 401 n. 

2 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., II: 54; Hartford Town Votes, I: 114. 



260 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

years of age. There is no record of a grant then made for 
his support. Tuition was probably paid that season by 
the parents. Most likely his school was kept from the first 
in some private house. In November following, the towns- 
men were empowered to hire the house of John Church for 
a school-house; and to "Incourage m r pitkin to teach such 
Schollers as shall be sent to him." This house was that of 
Richard Church on North Main Street, which he had bought 
from William Spencer. It was probably then vacant be- 
cause of the removal of the owner, with the "withdrawers," 
to Hadley. It is another instance proving that early schools 
were kept in private houses. Such was their arrangement 
for the next four or five years. Mr. Pitkin was the school- 
master and he was paid in part by the town. 1 Thus we are 
brought to the end of what may be termed the pioneer 
period of Hartford's school life. We have the authority of 
John Trumbull, Esq., who prepared the memorial of 1798, 
hereafter cited, for stating that, during the first thirty years, 
there was no school in Hartford, except the grammar school, 
where the masters taught some Greek and Latin and much 
a. b. c. Such is the writer's conclusion, after a study of the 
records. 

Governor Edward Hopkins, the son of Edward Hopkins, 
and Katherine, the sister of Sir Henry Lello, Warden of the 
Fleet and Keeper of the Palace of Westminster, was born 
in Shrewsbury, England in 1600. After his education, 
which was conducted there at the Royal Free Grammar 
School, he became a merchant in London. He came to 
New England in 1637, with Theophilus Eaton, whose wife 
was the mother of Ann Yale, whom Governor Hopkins had 
married. In 1653, he returned to England, and, upon the 
death of his brother soon afterwards, he inherited the honors 
of his uncle as Warden of the Fleet. He lived only a few 
years. His will, dated March 7, 1656-7, was proved in 
London on April 30th following. It was found to contain the 
following bequest: 

"And the residue of any estate there [New England] I do 
hereby give and bequeath to my father Theophilus Eaton, 
Esq., Mr. John Davenport, Mr. John Cullick and Mr. 

1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 132, 136. 137, 141. 



EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 261 

William Goodwin, in full assurance of their trust and faith- 
fulness in disposing of it according to the true intent and 
purpose of me the said Edward Hopkins, which is, to give 
some encouragement in those foreign plantations for the 
breeding up of hopeful youths, both at the grammar school 
and college, for the publick service of the country in future 
times." 

In a later clause he added to this bequest, in the following 
provision : 

"My farther mind and will is, that, within six months 
after the decease of my wife £500 be made over into New 
England, according to the advice of my loving friends 
Major Robert Thomson and Mr. Francis Willoughby, and 
conveyed into the hands of the trustees before mentioned, 
in further prosecution of the aforesaid public ends, which, 
in the simplicity of my heart, are for the upholding and 
promoting the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ in those 
parts of the earth." l 

It seems to have been Governor Hopkins's intention to 
encourage the education of youth, both in grammar school 
and college. His early allegiance had been to Harvard 
College. He was President of the Commissioners of the 
United Colonies in 1644, when Rev. Thomas Shepard pre- 
sented his memorial asking for contributions to that institu- 
tion. He was Governor of Connecticut the following month, 
when that recommendation was adopted by the General 
Court. After his return to England, Rev. John Davenport 
of New Haven, probably with a knowledge of the difficulties 
encountered at Hartford, had solicited, by correspondence, 
his interest in establishing a college in New Haven. In a 
reply, dated April 30, 1656, Mr. Hopkins had given the pro- 
ject encouragement. 2 What his mind was in this respect is, 
perhaps, open to a difference of opinion. As to his intention 

1 Winthrop's History, I, 273-275; The Hopkins Fund in Hadley, 1657-1890; 
Bowditch's The Hopkins Trust, 1889; Bacon's Historical Discourse on the 
Hopkins Grammar School; Catalogue of the Trustees, etc., of the Hopkins Grammar 
School of New Haven, 1660-1902; Historical Discourse pronounced at the 250th 
Anniversary of the Hopkins Grammar School of New Haven, 1910, by Hon. 
Simeon E. Baldwin; Address by Dr. Henry Parks Wright in Commemorative 
Exercises upon the 250th Anniversary of the Hopkins Grammar School of New 
Haven, 1910; Barnard's American Journal of Education, IV: 657 ff. 

2 New Haven Col. Rec, II: 370. 



262 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

to assist in founding a grammar school in Hartford, there 
can be no doubt. This purpose, as above disclosed in a 
study of the records, must have been known to his friends 
William Goodwin and John Cullick, and probably, also, to 
some of the inhabitants in Hartford, before his return to 
England. In view of this knowledge, the town interpreted 
his will as a provision for the accomplishment of his pur- 
pose. This accounts for the apparently stupid and stubborn 
course pursued by the General Court in reference to the ad- 
ministration of his estate. It was unfortunate that the terms 
of his will were not more specific; but the uncertainty of 
conditions in Hartford at the time of his death may, in part, 
explain this omission. He therefore appointed four trustees, 
equally divided between Hartford and New Haven, and 
left them to carry out his purposes, according to their judg- 
ment. Of these trustees, Governor Eaton died soon after 
the testator, and Mr. Cullick on January 2, 1662-3, before 
any settlement was made. The decision was left, therefore, 
to Messrs. Davenport and Goodwin. 

It is a plain matter of record that the General Court of 
Connecticut used every means within its power to prevent 
the trustees from the performance of their trust as they 
interpreted it. 1 Feeling in the church controversy was 
rife, and both Cullick and Goodwin were among the "with- 
drawers." The very Court before which they were pleaders 
in 1658, inaugurated this hostile course. That this was just 
after Cullick and Goodwin had petitioned the Massachusetts 
General Court for leave to remove up the river, and that the 
restraint on the estate was temporarily removed in 1659, 
when it was thought their project had been abandoned, is 
a sufficient disclosure of the animus of the Connecticut 
authorities. They desired to secure the estate for the bene- 
fit of their own Colony, which many may have considered 
the testator's intentions. 2 The Court conceded only one 
point to the wishes of the trustees — the appointment of 
Deacon Edward Stebbins and Lieutenant Thomas Bull, in 
1661, to manage the estate. 3 It then had from Mr. Goodwin, 

1 Conn. Cot. Rcc, I: 3ii, 338, 341, 345, 350, 361, 37. 

2 The Hopkins Fund in Hadley, p. 19. 

3 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 374. 



EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 263 

who had removed meanwhile to Hadley, a written tender of 
£350 to the Colony. This was not accepted; but a com- 
mittee was named to treat with the trustees, which was 
refused. 1 So the contention went on until March 10, 1663-4, 
when the General Court removed the sequestration, with 
some very lame excuses. It was influenced, no doubt, 
by the advice of Governor Winthrop, who had recently re- 
turned with their Charter, but more, perhaps, by Mr. Good- 
win's intimation of "freeing the estate elsewhere," meaning 
by an appeal to the Chancery Court in England. 2 

The inventory of this estate, made by the townsmen of 
Hartford in 1660 and returned to the General Court, 
amounted to £1382 3s. 6d. Governor Hopkins's Hartford 
lands were valued at £545. 3 The trustees had then decided 
that one-half of the estate should be given "to further the 
Colledge at Newhaven," and the other half should be im- 
proved where they had "power to perform their trust, w * 1 
because they could not expect to have [it] at Hartford they 
concluded it would be best done by them in that new plan- 
tation vnto w CD sundry of Hartford were to remove and 
[were] even now gone, yet they agreed that out of the whole 
an 100 li should be given to the Colledge at Cambridg in 
the Bay." 4 On April 30, 1664, however, Messrs. Davenport 
and Goodwin agreed to give £400 to Hartford, and divide 
the balance including the £500 contingent upon the death 
of Mrs. Hopkins, "between the towns of Newhaven and 
Hadley," £100 being paid to Harvard College out of Had- 
ley's share. The provision respecting Hartford was ex- 
pressed in the following terms: 

"The debts and legacie being paid, we do give to the town 
of Hartford the sum of 400£, of which Hills his farm shall 
be a part, at the price at which it was sold by us, and pay- 
ment ready to be delivered if there had been no interrup- 
tion, the rest of the 400£ in such debts or goods as we or 

1 Ibid., I: 578, 579. 

*Ibid., I: 412, 418; XV: 543. 

3 The Hopkins Fund in Hadley, p. 19. 

4 Ibid., pp. 21, 22. Mrs. Hopkins died Dec. 17, 1698. Harvard College and the 
Cambridge Grammar School received the contingent bequest of £500, through 
the " Society for the Propagation of the Gospel," by an act of the English Court 
of Chancery, dated March 19, 1712-13. It amounted to £771 13 s. 7d. 



264 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

our agents see meet, provided that this gift be improved 
according to the true intent of the donor, viz. for or towards 
the erecting and promoting of a grammar school at Hartford. 
Provided also that the General Court at Connecticut do 
grant and give to us, the said Trustees, a writing, legally 
confirmed, so that neither themselves will, nor any, by, 
from, or under them shall, disturb or hinder us in our dis- 
pose, or executing our dispose of the rest of the estate, which, 
being done this gift is in all respects valid." * 

Following the above, is the request of the trustees as 
above quoted, with reference to the building of a school- 
house upon the lot where Governor Hopkins had in his life 
time desired it. This, therefore, connects the Hopkins 
bequest with the movement for better educational facilities 
begun in 1649, of which Elder William Goodwin was sponsor. 

On January 18, 1664-5, the Council agreed that the estate 
should not be further "molested by sequestering," and 
Messrs. Stebbins and Bull promised to pay the £400 in the 
spring. 2 Meanwhile the town had appointed, December 3, 
1664, Samuel Wyllys, James Richards and William Wads- 
worth a committee to receive the above sum, and employ 
it, "with whatsoever elce is allredy giuen or shall bee raised 
to that intent" "for the promoteing of Learning." This 
committee, profiting by the experience of Mr. Goodwin, 
sought another location. They settled upon the original 
home lot of Deacon Andrew Warner, who had removed to 
Hadley. It was the second lot west of that where their 
first school-house had stood. In 1659, Mr. Warner had 
sold it to William Loveridge, a hatter, who agreed to pay 
for it and an upland lot £130, in wheat, peas and "suteable 
hats." 3 Perhaps he was disinclined to dispose of his prop- 
erty; but the Council, on January 4, 1664-5, offered to 
remit certain fines due from him, if he would sell "for the 
use of the towne " and remove from the Colony. Accordingly 
he conveyed his two tracts to the committee. They also 
received at that time four tracts at Hockanum, comprising 
fifty-six acres, known as the Hopkins farm, then in the im- 
provement of William Hills, together with Hopkins's rights 

1 The Hopkins Fund in Hadley, p. 26. 

1 Conn. Col. Rcc, XV: 54*. 54,'j. 3 Original Distribution, pp. 58, 490. 



EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 265 

in all future distributions. 1 These lands were recorded to 
the town, January 18, 1665-6, for the "maintenance of 
the Latin school." Their value could not have been £400, 
but, how much the committee received in "debts and goods," 
is unknown. John Trumbull, Esq., who was the treasurer 
of the fund in 1789, gave the value of these lands as £200. 

There were some inhabitants who still considered the 
Main Street location as preferable. For this reason, or 
because they wished the entire fund devoted to erecting the 
building, the town voted, January 30, 1665-6, "that the 
committee for the schoole should have liberty to build a 
schoole house in the most convenient place between Wil- 
liam Warrens & Nath : Willetts house lot, which was Thomas 
Greenhills." This meant in the broad highway running 
southward from the bridge. The school-house would then 
be in Main Street, abreast of the Adams lot. Here it was 
afterwards erected. On the Loveridge lot, however, there 
were a house and other buildings, as good and probably 
better than the school had ever enjoyed. The committee 
decided, therefore, to use them until better could be afforded. 
The house was repaired, at an expense of £48, and their 
school was again in permanent quarters. In 1668, this lot 
was said to be "now in the possession and improvement of 
the Town of Hartford," and in a deed of 1673 it is called 
"The schoole house lot." 2 

The school here conducted for many years was variously 
termed a "Grammar School," "Latin School," or "Free 
School." The Hopkins arms were hung upon its walls. A 
frame for them was made in 1678, by Nicholas Desborough, 
for which Captain John Talcott paid 2s. 6d. 2 It was in 
this school-house that the Indians were confined in 1675, as 
elsewhere related. The school's affairs were managed by a 
committee appointed by the town. John Allyn and John 
Talcott, the Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the 
Colony, had been added in 1668 to that above-named. 

1 Ibid., pp. 421-423; Hartford Land Records, 2: 139. Cf. Orig. Dist., pp. 5 ff. 

2 Original Distribution, pp. 175, 444. 

3 John Talcott's Account Book, State Library, p. 53. For the arms of Governor 
Hopkins, impaled with the Lello arms, and used by him on a seal, see 4 Ser. Mass. 
Hist. Soc. Coll., Vol. VI, plates. 



266 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

The names of its early teachers are unknown. In 1673, 
Rev. Caleb Watson was engaged. His salary was £60 a 
year. Toward this the town granted a sum not to exceed 
£30, the inhabitants to send their children free of expense. 1 
Mr. Watson was a son of John Watson of Roxbury, and was 
born in 1641. After his graduation at Harvard College in 
the class of 1661, he began teaching, and, from 1666 to 
1673, is said to have been at Hadley. In 1687, the town of 
Hartford annulled its agreement with him, but perhaps 
thought better of it, for he continued as teacher until 1705. 
The town then voted that he be no longer master, and the 
committee were authorized to provide a successor "to manage 
that work in Convenient Time." He was then sixty-four 
years old. His property was encumbered and he was in 
debt. The town repeatedly abated his interest. In 1681, 
the General Court granted him two hundred acres of land. 
He was freed from his taxes in 1708, in "consideration of 
his good service." A memorial was presented to the As- 
sembly in 1725 for his relief, he having been "for a multi- 
tude of years last past in ye office of school master and a 
great benefactor to the Colony." He died within a year, 
"an old man much respected." 2 

This school had meanwhile become, says Dr. Barnard, 
"The main reliance of the town for the education of all its 
children, old and young." Its usefulness in higher education 
was thus impaired, and the purpose of the Hopkins be- 
quest was lost to view. After King Philip's War. an opinion 
more favorable to schools of a lower grade prevailed. Every 
town of thirty instead of fifty families, was ordered, in 1678, 
to teach its children to read and write. In 1690, there being 
still "many persons unable to read the English tongue," 
provision was made to compel such instruction. It was also 
enacted that there should be two free schools in the Colony, 
one at Hartford and the other at New Haven. These schools 
were to teach "reading, writeing, arithmetick, the Lattin 
and Greek tongues." The master was to be paid jointly 
by the school's revenue, the town and the Colony. All 

1 Hartford Toini Votes, I: 170, 171, 173, 175, 184, 195, 203, 222, 223. 

* Sibley's Harvard Graduates, II: 95-98; Hartford Town Votes, I: 291, 294. 
309; Conn, Col. Rec, III: 93; IV: 305,323,429; V: 72; State Archives: College 
and School, I: 57. 



EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 267 

elementary town schools, "as disstinct from the free schoole," 
were to be kept six months each year. The only qualifica- 
tion for admittance to the free school was an ability to "read 
the psalter." l Under these conditions, such instruction in 
Hartford was given at home or under a school-dame. Good- 
wife Kake was the teacher of Captain Talcott's children in 
1675; and this primary teaching was doubtless the rule for 
years. 

Thus, one of the Colony's free schools was located in 
Hartford. It was accomplished by transforming the old 
Grammar School. New interest was awakened, without 
any marked improvement. Its buildings were then old. 
The time had come for an edifice erected especially for a 
school-house. Again they turned to the site formerly se- 
lected, and decided to use the privilege granted by the 
town to build in Main Street, abreast of it. The location 
of the Second Church, and the enterprise that had gathered 
in that neighborhood, had augmented the importance of 
the bridge as a public center. Dr. Barnard says of this 
school-house that, in 1760, it had stood there for "seventy 
years," just south of Linden Place. The town votes make 
no mention of its erection. Perhaps such action was taken 
at the annual town meeting in 1691, the record of which 
is omitted. In 1692, the rate rose for some special reason 
from £45 to £121. The school committee was authorized 
in 1698 to ascertain the town's rights in the old property 
and "to dispose of said house & lot cald y e Town house" 
to the best advantage of the school and the town. Probably 
it was rented for a time. In 1710, they were empowered to 
exchange it for meadow or other land of greater benefit to 
the school, which they did, two years later. 2 

The site of this school-house is approximately determined 
by the vote of the town in 1719, giving liberty for the erec- 
tion of horse sheds in Main Street, to suit the convenience 
of attendants at the South Church. Their location was to 
be "at the South End of the School houfe by M r Howards 
fence." 3 In 1748 Thomas Seymour, Esq., bought from Sam- 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, IV: 30, 31. 

2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 252, 253, 298, 299; Hartford Land Records, 2: 160. 

3 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 15. 



268 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

uel Howard two tracts of land here. 1 He erected a barn in 
1749 and made an elaborate estimate of the expense of a new 
house, "in order," he wrote in his Memorandum Book, 
"to first Count y e Cost," according to the Scripture warning. 
His estimate was £2946., upon which he afterwards com- 
mented thus: "N.B. I did not Count half the Cost." His 
house was of the best materials and superior workmanship, 
as the inspection of it proves, for it is still standing at the 
west end of Linden Place. After his death in 1767, it was 
the home of his widow Hepzibah (Merrill) Seymour and her 
children. Her rights in the cellar buttery where the "Arch" 
is and in the "Space way," near the "fore Door," whence 
the stairs ascend, as well as the deeds, easily identify the 
house. It passed in 1793, by deed of gift from her son, 
Mayor Thomas Seymour, to his son, Major Thomas Y. 
Seymour, who was living there in 1801, when the land for 
Linden Place was conveyed to the City of Hartford, the 
north and south lines running from the east corners of this 
house. It was later the homestead of Sylvester Wells, and 
from the estate of Ralph Wells passed, in 1839, to Hon. 
Gideon Welles. 2 Here President Lincoln's Secretary of the 
Navy lived before his residence in Washington. As the 
town gave Thomas Seymour, Esq., liberty in 1749 to move 
the school-house not more than twenty rods from the river, 
and a driveway to his house was early constructed, the 
school-house doubtless stood opposite the entrance to Lin- 
den Place, and was removed to suit Squire Seymour's 
convenience. 

The school building was of wood and comparatively 
small. It is thought to have had only one room. Various 
provisions were made to secure fuel to heat it in winter. 
Here Rev. Daniel W 7 adsworth preached to the negroes and 
held other services on Sunday evenings. The teachers were 
young and inexperienced college graduates. Some of them 
studied theology, medicine or law, at the same time. Noah 
Welles Jr. of Colchester, a graduate of Yale College in 1741, 
was the teacher for several years. The terms of such in- 

1 Hartford Land Records, 8: 99, 138. 

2 Ibid., 20: 3G8; 21: 5(i3; 22: 123,459; 25: 272; 28: 9,101,133; 29: 23,24; 
32: 93; 43: 350; 58: 214,281; 60: 191; 61: 88; 62: 322. 



w 




EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 269 

structors were short, and their schools were likely to be 
inferior. From 1751 to 1760, Rev. Edward Dorr, pastor of 
the First Church kept a private school. Jeremiah Wads worth 
was one of his pupils. It is not unlikely that other teachers 
did the same during this period. 

The establishment of this Free School gave to Hartford 
better advantages for the higher education of those days, 
but it did not further public elementary instruction. The 
revised law of 1700 required all towns having no free school 
to maintain a school to teach children to read and write. 
Grammar, or free schools, were then provided in Hartford, 
New Haven, New London and Fairfield. In Hartford, 
children could enter after receiving elementary instruction 
at home, or from a school-dame. The above law also es- 
tablished a new system of aiding town schools from the 
Colony's treasury. 1 This was extended, later, to parishes. 
By an act of 1710, the inhabitants of the East-side had been 
empowered to manage their own schools. The West Di- 
vision was made a society in 1711, to which like privileges 
were granted under a law of 1712. 

Such were the conditions in 1753, when an agitation began 
in Hartford for the elimination of elementary education 
from the grammar school. The plan was to accomplish 
this by providing two parish schools, one in connection 
with each ecclesiastical society. This was really in accord- 
ance with the existing law, requiring such schools in every 
society where there were seventy families. This fact was 
used as an argument with the General Assembly in urging 
the division of Hartford into two districts. In 1753, the 
town voted that the income of lands and rents be applied 
for the future to the maintenance of the grammar school, 
and it appointed a committee to take charge of the fund. 
Further action in this direction was taken in 1756, it being 
expressly declared that the income of the town's school 
fund should be devoted "to the proper ufe or ufes defigned 
in the original Donation." 2 Thus the Grammar School 
was started on a new career, which we shall follow later. 
It was not so easy to establish the proposed parish schools. 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, IV: 331, 375. 

2 Hartford Town Vote*, MS. Vol. II: 155, 167. 



270 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Neither of the ehurches had clearly defined parochial 
bounds. The natural division between them was the 
Little River, but some families in each lived on the side of 
the other. A difference arose, therefore, as to the dividing 
line. This occasioned long delay. The matter was before 
the First Ecclesiastical Society on January 16, 1756, when 
the above difficulty was stated. The opinion then recorded 
was that "this Society judg necessary that Exclufive of 
the Grammar School ther be (to be erected in some con- 
venient places and situations within the Limits of said two 
Societys) two other Schools sett up and Supported for an 
English Education only," or, as later explained, to teach 
"reading, writing and arithmetic." * This society then 
petitioned the General Assembly for a division of the town 
into two districts. Some of the Second Society, however, 
desired to include in that district the homes on the north 
bank of the Little River, from Haynes's Corner to the Mills. 
Perhaps this was for personal reasons; but it seems more 
likely that they desired to have the new Grammar School 
building on School Street, on the dividing line between the 
two districts. These societies finally united in a petition to 
the Assembly, which granted their request, making the Little 
River the boundary between them. 2 This conclusion was 
reached in May 1761. 

The inhabitants of the First or North District did not 
wait for this action. In 1758, or early in 1759, thirty of the 
Proprietors, being unable to act as a town or a society, 
erected the famous Brick School House. The cost was 
divided among them in equal shares. One of these was 
conveyed, May 30, 1759, as "one Thirtieth part of the Brick 
School Houfe now lately built and standing on the Old 
Meeting Houfe Hill and near the dwelling houfe of Capt. 
John Lawrence in Hartford." 3 This was in the eastern 
section of the square. It was the first school-house of the 
North District, although it was erected as a Parish School 
before that district was created. James Hosmer, being 

1 First Ecclesiastical Society Records, Feb. 3, 1755, Jan. 16, 1756, Feb. 24, 1757, 
Jan. 24, 1759, and Feb. 13, 1760; State Archives: College and School, I: 153 ff. 

2 Conn. Col. Rec, XI: 410, 467, 560; XII: 497; XIII: 337. 

3 Hartford Land Records, 9: 502; 11: 245,256. 



EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 271 

seventy-nine years of age, testified in 1830, that when he 
was a boy of twelve years, he attended school there. The 
building faced the south, and he was "in the habit of peep- 
ing frequently from the school house to the old Williamson 
tavern." l In a deed the building is located about fifteen 
rods east of the Court House. Its career was brief. In 
making preparations for the celebration of the repeal of 
the Stamp Act, May 23, 1766, a quantity of powder in it 
was ignited and the school-house was blown up. Six young 
men representing prominent families, died after being 
escued from the ruins, and many others were wounded. 2 
On the following Sunday, Rev. John Devotion of Saybrook, 
being providentially in Hartford, preached in the North 
Meeting House a memorial discourse upon the calamity. 

The district doubtless made temporary provision for 
several years, pending the contemplated division of the 
school funds. The Second North District was set off in 
1770. It depended upon rented quarters for some years, 
but later built near the junction of Ann and Main streets. 
The First or "Middle District" was given liberty in 1771 
to erect a school-house on the northeast corner of the 
burying-ground. This building was of brick, thirty-six 
feet long north and south, and twenty-two feet wide. It 
had a chimney at each end and a partition in the middle. 
This school-house was sold in 1814. Its successor was the 
"Stone Jug" school-house on Market Street. The South 
District experienced delay in erecting its first school-house, 
because the inhabitants could not agree on a location. As 
early as 1762, they sought a division into two districts. It 
is believed that they used the old Grammar School building 
for a time. In 1769, a district school-house was erected on 
the South Green. We have entered, however, the era of 
our modern district system, the history of which has been 
written. 3 At the time this system was adopted, it was 

1 "Report of the Committee on the Petition of Samuel Olcott," State Street 
Papers, Town Clerk's Office. 

2 Barber's Conn. HiM. Coll., p. 54; Hartford Town Voles, MS. Vol. II: 213, 214, 
236; Conn. Col. Rec, XII: 467; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 298, 299. 

3 "Historical Sketch of Districts," by Supt. Thomas S. Weaver, in Annual Re- 
port of School Visitors, 1904, pp. 83 ff. 



272 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

a necessary step in the evolution of better and higher 
education. 

In 1753, Mrs. Abigail Woodbridge conveyed to the town's 
school committee sixty-five square rods of her home-lot 
near the corner of Main and Arch streets, for the erection 
of a new Grammar School building. Here this school was 
conducted for about half a century. The site is now occu- 
pied by the east end of the Municipal Building. The edifice 
fronted on the highway along the north bank of the Little 
River, to which it gave the name "School Street." l It was 
the town's most ambitious effort hitherto for higher educa- 
tion. The town's vote to devote thereafter the income of 
its school funds to this original purpose, gave the enterprise 
encouragement. In 1672, six hundred acres of land had been 
granted by the Colony for its benefit. Many years elapsed 
before this grant was laid out in Stafford. It was not sold 
until 1776. 2 Tracts of land in Litchfield and Fairfield coun- 
ties were also bestowed upon it. This school was under the 
care of a committee of prominent inhabitants, including 
the town's ministers, to which others were added from time 
to time afterwards. It had been suggested however in a 
meeting of the First Ecclesiastiacl Society, January 24, 1759, 
that a portion of the funds in the hands of this committee 
properly belonged to the English School. Certain persons 
were then appointed to treat with them. Perhaps this opin- 
ion was entertained elsewhere. In 1765, the town considered 
the matter, and subsequent votes forecast the final result. 
A division was made in 1771, and one-fourth of the fund, 
or £284, was given to the two districts. The residue was 
set apart for the Grammar School. 3 No doubt that school 
had failed to meet their expectations since its removal. 
Titus Hosmer, the son of Captain Stephen Hosmer of the 
West Division, was the preceptor from 1758 to 1760, when 
he began the practice of law in Middletown. He was a 
graduate of Yale College, and the recipient of a Berkeley 
scholarship. Thomas Seymour's accounts with the school 

1 Hartford Land Records, 1: 155; 9: 306. 

2 Conn. Col. Rec, II: 176; IV: 402; V: 462; VI: 548; XV: 448; Colonial 
Land Records, III: 258. 

» Hartford Town Voles, MS. Vol. II: 209, 212; "Papers Relating to the School 
Districts," in collections of the Conn. Hist. Soc. 



EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 273 

indicate that his successor for a time in 1761 was a Mr. 
Dean, who has not been identified, unless he was Silas 
Deane. 1 This distinguished patriot was graduated from 
Yale College in 1758. After Mr. Dean, perhaps with an 
interval, Nehemiah Strong, Yale College 1755, became the 
preceptor and was teaching the school in 1769. He was 
perhaps followed by John Wright, who begged his patrons 
in 1771 to pay up, as he was about to leave town. Eleazer 
Wales, a graduate of Yale College in 1753, and a son of 
Ebenezer Wales of Windham, became preceptor about 1772 
and continued in service for seven or eight years. He had 
been licensed to preach in 1765. In 1775, he opened an 
evening school at his house, to teach young men navigation 
etc. Oliver Lewis came to Hartford in 1780, the year of his 
graduation from Yale College. He advertised, in September 
1781, that the Grammar School was opened, where Latin 
and Greek would be taught. "A watchful eye," he added, 
"will be kept over the morals of the youth." In 1783, he 
advertised a morning and evening school to be kept at the 
Grammar School building. The hours on Monday, Friday 
and Saturday, were from 6 to 8.30 o'clock in the morning; 
and on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, from 5 o'clock 
to sunset. He had studied law in Hartford and in 1783 was 
admitted to the bar. During this period, private schools 
sprang up in the town. In 1770, John Jeffrey, who had come 
from Rhinebeck, N.Y., and married in 1766 Sarah Nichols 
of Hartford, advertised a private school where Andrew 
Thomson had formerly kept a store. Samuel Holbrook had 
such a school in 1775. Noah Webster the lexicographer, 
who is said to have lived and done some of his work where 
the Robbins building now stands, on the north corner of 
Main and Mulberry streets, opened a rhetorical school in 
1783 for the cultivation of the English language. In 1784, 

1 "Seymour Papers" in Boardman Collection, State Library, No. 5561. Bris- 
sot de Warville in his New Travels says of Wethersfield : "They tell me it gave 
birth to the famous Silas Deane, one of the first promoters of the American revolu- 
tion; from a school master in this town, elevated to the rank of an Envoy from 
Congress to Europe." Mr. Deane was born in Groton, Conn., and we know of 
no evidence that he taught school in Wethersfield. Perhaps his teaching in Hart- 
ford may have been the source of this impression. He is said to have settled in 
Wethersfield in 1761. 



274 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Ebenezer Whiting taught a school in the house of Mr. 
John Hall. Mr. Lathrop advertised in November 1788, 
that he had opened a school for young ladies at the large 
building a few rods south of the printing office. These 
schools undoubtedly detracted from the public interest in 
the Grammar School. After the incorporation of Hartford, 
this interest was revived. Solomon Porter was the preceptor 
for some years. He resigned in 1792, and George Jeffrey 
Patten succeeded him. He was the son of Rev. William 
Patten, pastor of the Second Church, and Ruth, the daughter 
of Dr. Eleazar Wheelock, President of Dartmouth Col- 
lege. His service ended in 1798. ! That year, at the town's 
request and upon a memorial drafted by John Trumbull, Esq., 
the committee then in charge of this school were incorporated 
as "The Trustees of the Grammar School in the Town of 
Hartford." 2 The school was then newly arranged. Its 
pupils were boys, limited to forty in number. In a list of 
those examined and approved for entrance in 1798, we find 
the familiar Hartford names, Beach, Bolles, Bull, Butler, 
Cad well, Hart, Root, Wolcott and W T yllys. During the 
next decade the following Yale graduates were in succession 
the preceptors: Elisha Chapman, Alanson Hamlin, Thomas 
Adams, Stedman Adams and Amasa Loomis. The trustees 
had for some time anticipated the sale of this property and a 
new location elsewhere. In 1808, they secured a portion of 
the Seymour homestead, lying between Buckingham Street 
and the house formerly occupied by Thomas Y. Seymour. 
Here there was a building standing. It was, perhaps, that 
referred to in 1807 as the Seymour office. An addition was 
built by the trustees, and the whole was equipped for the 
school. At the same time, another portion of the lot was 
secured. The removal was accomplished in 1809, and the 
old property was conveyed in 1810 to Daniel Wadsworth. 
John Langdon of Yale College was the next preceptor. He 
was succeeded by Isaac Parsons. The school prospered. In 

1 Memoirs of Mrs. Patten, pp. 71, 83; Family Letters of the late Mrs. Ruth Patten, 
pp. 257-259. Mr. Patten afterwards founded a Literary Institute in Hartford 
for both sexes, and kept a school for boys. He died in 1830. His sisters the Misses 
Patten kept a girls' school from 1785 to 1807. 

2 Private Laws of Conn., II: 1000; V: 514. 



EARLY SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN 275 

1813, another addition to the building was erected. Their 
school-house had been outgrown, however, in 1828, when 
Enoch Perkins, Esq., was authorized to secure the building 
of "a new brick school-house," 54 feet long and 38 feet wide. 
It was to have two stories and be furnished with desks, seats 
and a stove. The north front of this edifice was twenty or 
thirty feet south of the south line of Linden Place. It looked 
toward the old Seymour house, then known as the Welles 
homestead. The city had meanwhile opened Capitol 
Avenue, which divided the school-house lot. The playground 
was south of it. A lane south of Enoch Perkins's house, 
which had furnished access from Main Street to the earlier 
school-house, thus gave place to a city street. The new 
building of the Hartford Grammar School is [remembered 
by the living. It was here that the desire of the founders 
of Hartford, to establish a school for classical learning, was 
worthily realized, after nearly two centuries of struggle, 
and this school stood near the site that Governor Edward 
Hopkins had chosen. The sequel relates to recent events. 
In 1847, the trustees approved a proposition of the First 
School District to unite with it in supporting a High School. 
Thus their relations with the classical department of that 
school were established. 



CHAPTER XVII 
PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 

It will not be denied that criminal history is one of our best 
means of acquaintance with social conditions in any age. 
The standards of virtue, as well as the current vices, are 
there disclosed. Our fathers kept no such record of crimes 
as the modern newspaper publishes. The entries made by 
the courts are very meagre. In some cases written testi- 
mony is extant in the State Archives. We have sufficient 
details, however, in one way or another, to secure a near 
view of the criminal courts of colonial times, their proceed- 
ings and those who were arraigned before them. 

The court established by the Commission for a provisional 
government was the first in Connecticut. It had civil and 
criminal jurisdiction. The General Court set up by the 
inhabitants of the plantations, succeeded it. Sessions of a 
Particular Court were held as early as 1637. * Their records 
begin with 1639. Until 1650, these were kept in the same 
volume with those of the General Court of the Colony, and 
are printed with them. Thereafter, they are in separate 
books and unprinted. 2 The Particular Court gave place, 
in 1666, to the County Courts. In 1665, the Court of As- 
sistants was established. The Superior Court succeeded this 
in 1711. These were the criminal courts of colonial times. 3 

The early Particular Court was constituted of the Gover- 
nor, Deputy Governor and magistrates. In 1642, the 
presence of either the Governor or Deputy Governor, 
with four magistrates, was made a quorum. Two magis- 
trates only were required in 1647, or three magistrates, 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 1(5. 

2 Particular Court, Vol. II, Probate Records, 1650-1663; Probate Records, Book- 
Ill, County Court, 1663-1677 — Secretary of State's Office. 

3 Conn. Hi ports. Vol. 53, Appendix by Dr. Hoadly; "Origin of Conn. Courts," 
by Judge Bammersley, in N. E. States, I: 477 ff.; Report of the Temporary Ex- 
aminer <<J Public Records, 1904, pp. 21 ff. 



PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 277 

one of whom presided. Quarterly sessions were adopted 
in 1642. Trials by jury were customary in criminal cases. 
The jury might be composed of six or twelve men. Although 
strenuous efforts were made to secure unanimous verdicts, 
one could be rendered by four or eight jurymen. A grand 
jury was provided for in 1643. The judges of this court 
were obviously the leaders in public affairs. During its 
existence, the following Hartford men were numbered 
among them: Haynes, Hopkins, George Wyllys, Welles, 
Webster, Samuel Wyllys, Whiting, Cullick, Talcott, Mathew 
Allyn, John Allyn and James Richards. These men were 
not lawyers, but they were not lacking in qualifications. 
According to the laws, their decisions were just and wise. 

Every magistrate was bound by his oath to assist in the 
execution of the laws. He was the prosecuting officer in 
the community where he lived. In 1639 the laws were 
provided for each town in manuscript. Later, when they 
were printed, they were accessible to all the people. In 
fact, a deal that is both true and interesting might be written 
as to the aptitude of the early New Englander as a student 
of law. In 1642, twelve capital laws were established. Fines 
were imposed in the Code of 1650, for profane swearing, 
lying, petty theft and similar offenses. In default of pay- 
ment, the offender was put in the stocks or pillory. Some- 
times he was whipped. Branding in the forehead with the 
letter "B" was the penalty for burglary, to be repeated on 
the second offense, with the addition of whipping. The 
penalty for a third offense was death. "When this crime 
was committed on the Lord's Day, an ear could also be cut 
off for the first and second offenses — a provision, perhaps, 
designed to protect their homes while they were absent at 
church. Forgery was punishable by standing in the pillory 
on three lecture days, and double damages to the party 
wronged. As actions for debt were very frequent, it should 
be noted that, in the Code of 1650, no person could be 
arrested and imprisoned for any debt or fine, if satisfaction 
could be obtained by law from his estate. If imprisoned, 
he was kept at his own charges until settlement was made. 
No defense is here attempted of the severe laws of those 
Puritan times. We must admit the truth of many charges 



278 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

that have been brought against them. In justice to their 
court records, it is stated, however, that their magistrates 
did not inflict, in many instances, the penalties that the law 
prescribed. Capital crimes were punished otherwise than 
by death. Some persons were released, after being compelled 
to stand for a time on the gallows ladder with the noose 
around their necks. Large discretion was then allowed the 
magistrates in the infliction of punishment. They were 
often very ingenious in doing so, and they sometimes made 
the most of mitigating circumstances. To a surprising 
degree, their trials reveal the fact that their main purpose 
was the reformation of the criminal, in which they sometimes 
succeeded. It was fortunate that their early courts had 
such magistrates as have been named. During their ad- 
ministration of justice, principles were established and 
methods of procedure were inaugurated, which continued 
for many years and, in some cases, throughout colonial 
times. 

As we might expect, there were no misdemeanors in which 
all colonial courts were more particular than those that im- 
pugned the court's own dignity, or the authority of its 
officers. More than one man of standing in Hartford, was 
compelled to offer his apologies to the court; nor was his 
fine remitted when he had done so. Contemptuous speeches 
about the court and its proceedings, or disobedience of its 
orders, were punished in a number of instances. One man 
was fined £50 for resisting an officer of the court. Another 
was fined ten shillings for not responding to a warrant. A 
man once dared to say that the court "had given the Con- 
stables a Ly cense to Lye." In several instances, witnesses 
who concealed information were punished. The officers of 
a town were also sustained in their authority. One who 
offered an affront to the watch, or resisted him, was severely 
dealt with. In 1646, several rogues broke prison and escaped. 
Perhaps they had been concerned in a raid made shortly 
before, by a party of servants, who broke into William 
Gibbons's house and drank his wine. Gibbons himself gave 
bonds for the due appearance of some of the party. Those 
who escaped were concealed by a man-servant and maid- 
servant in the house of their mistress. The former was 



PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 279 

fined £5, whipped and required to give security for his 
appearance three months later, when he was to be whipped 
again, unless the Court was convinced of his reformation. 
The maid was also fined £5, and whipped at the house of her 
mistress, which was to be repeated in three months unless 
the Court was informed of her amendment. That was their 
form of probation, for which they had some justification. A 
man, who should have known better, was whipped for ad- 
vising the prisoners not to "peach" on their friends. There 
were a large number of cases of theft. Some of the offenders 
were only fined. A man-servant, who had been guilty of 
immorality, was confined in the house of correction. He 
was afterwards returned to his master, to be kept at hard 
labor and on a coarse diet. This punishment did not reform 
him. He was later convicted of theft. The Court required 
him to restore four-fold, and he was to be branded in the 
hand on the next training-day. There were comparatively 
few cases during earlier years where persons were charged 
with drunkenness. They increased later. A distinction was 
made between the various phases of this offense. The fines 
were in proportion to the fault. Confinement in the stocks 
was common, if payment was not made. There were cases 
of profanity, assault, buying stolen goods, taking excessive 
rates, trespass, Sabbath breaking and the like; but they 
were comparatively few. In some instances, these offenders 
were treated practically according to the modern principle 
of probation. They were put under bonds for their good 
behavior or reformation. The excess of one man's earnings 
while he was in the house of correction, over the expenses of 
his keep, was devoted to the maintenance of his child. In 
the Court of Assistants, in 1678, a man and his wife were 
fined for excessive drinking. Stephen Hopkins and John 
Easton were appointed by the court to see that they behaved 
themselves — the earliest instance that we have met with 
of the appointment of probation officers in Hartford. 
Throughout colonial times emphasis was placed upon the 
reforming effect of hard labor. This principle was applied 
as a corrective measure long before they had a workhouse. 
Murders were rare except among the Indians. Excusable 
homicide was punished by a fine. The death of Thomas Scott 



280 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

was occasioned by an accident on the part of John Ewe. 
He was ordered to pay £5 to the Country and £10 to Widow 
Scott. On the whole, there were a surprising number of 
imprisonments for counterfeiting, especially during the 
later years of their colonial currency. This crime was 
severely punished. 

One misdemeanor that was very common during colonial 
times, was regarded with particular aversion and punished 
accordingly. It was slander, or defamation of character, 
which is rare in modern courts. The attitude of the founders 
of Connecticut, as expressed in the Code of 1650, was that 
"no mans honor or good name shall be stained" unjustly. 
They vested in their courts the protection of such a name, 
as they did his property rights. The publishing of a lie, 
"pernicious to the publique weale, or tending to the damage 
or iniurye of any particular person," was a great injustice. 
"To deceiue and abuse the people with false newes or re- 
portes," was a public wrong. This was one of their social 
temptations, as would have been natural among news- 
mongers. Lying was punishable by a fine of ten shillings 
for the first offense. In default of payment, one could ls 
placed in the stocks not exceeding three hours. The fine 
was doubled for the second offense, or a whipping on the 
naked body, not exceeding twenty stripes, could be ad- 
ministered. For the third offense, the fine was forty shil- 
lings, or thirty stripes. Upon each conviction thereafter, 
there was an increase in the penalty. This was a process 
that was quite likely to cure the liar in time. The enforce- 
ment of this law did not bar any person from an action for 
slander. Such suits were quite common, and the penalty 
was usually severe. The fine was as high as thirty pounds. 
In 1646, the slanderer of Mistress Mary Fen wick was sen- 
tenced to stand in the pillory during the lecture, then to be 
whipped, then fined five pounds, and finally to endure six 
months imprisonment. The libeler of Mistress Chester in 
1649, was committed to prison, to be brought forth and 
whipped the next lecture day, then to be imprisoned for a 
month, at the end of which time he was to be corrected 
again — all in addition to giving security for his good be- 
havior. There were other instances of slandering promi- 



PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 281 

nent colonial dames, whose vindication was promptly 
undertaken by the magistrates. They often displayed an 
ability to discriminate between neighborhood quarrels and 
vicious slanders. On one occasion, Goody A sued Goody B 
for circulating damaging reports about her character. The 
court, after due consideration, decided that Goody A bore 
in fact such a character among her neighbors. 

The impression prevails that offenses against social 
morality were scandalously common in colonial times. It 
is true that such misdemeanors are matters of frequent 
record. That they are noted in church records is neither 
surprising nor significant, since public confession and mar- 
riage were considered a proper and adequate atonement. 
Their Puritan standard of social virtue was high. This 
tended to increase their diligence and severity in dealing 
with immorality. Their most serious problem was due to 
the servants among them. These were very necessary to 
their life, both in the field and the household, but they were 
hard to control. President D wight has stated that the 
founders of New England brought with them "a collection 
of peasants and servants remarkable for their profligacy." 
After an examination of the records of New Haven County, 
he reached the conclusion that this class furnished most of 
their criminals. 1 A study of the court records at Hartford 
confirms this opinion. Pains have been taken to follow the 
lives of certain persons of this class. The fittest seemed to 
survive. Others of the baser sort perished. The truth is, that 
the fathers considered the existence of an unmarried class 
as a menace to the morals of a community. Laws were 
enacted to prevent such from gaining a residence among 
them or living alone. Servants were under the strict super- 
vision of their masters or mistresses. It was unlawful for 
any man to pay his attentions to a maid-servant, with design 
to inveigle her affections, without the mistress' permission. 
Cases are on record of the violation of this law. The one 
remedy in early times for social evils was marriage. Parents 
regarded it as the proper estate for their children when they 
arrived at maturity, and it was very common for them to 
bestow a marriage portion, or the means of earning a liveli- 

1 D wight's Travels, IV: 381. 



282 THE COLOMAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

hood, to this end. This, too, was often the remedy applied 
by the court. 

It has been thought that divorces were rare throughout 
the colonial period of Connecticut history. Of the seven- 
teenth century this is true, though they increased towards 
its close. The General Court ordered in 1677, that no di- 
vorces should be granted except for adultery, fraudulent 
contract or wilful desertion, after three years' neglect of 
duty. It further provided that, after seven years' provi- 
dential absence, the parties should be declared legally dead 
to each other. After 1711, many petitions were brought 
before the Superior Court for this latter reason, and divorces 
were more frequent on other grounds, although many 
requests were refused. 

The large majority of actions before the colonial courts 
were, of course, civil cases, such as prosecutions for damages, 
and suits for debt. For many of these there was good 
excuse. There was little business system in their transac- 
tions. Land at first was sometimes conveyed by "turf 
and twig," after an ancient English custom. 1 Many were 
negligent in the immediate recording of their deeds. Con- 
tracts and agreements were not always written. Debts 
were forgotten, and payment was deferred to a more con- 
venient season. All these conditions helped to increase their 
law suits. 

The most serious indictment that has ever been brought 
against our early criminal courts is for their action in the 
witchcraft delusion, the explanation of which has been 
often made and is here left to others. It was an episode in 
New England history that should be judged in view of 
similar beliefs then current in the old world. In Connecticut, 
all the cases where the condemned were executed occurred 
between 1647 and 1662. 2 They were, therefore, tried in the 
Particular Court. Of the seventeen in the river towns who 
were charged with witchcraft during this period, nine were 
residents of Hartford. Three of these were executed. As 
the prison where all criminals of Hartford, Windsor, Wethers- 
field and Farmington were confined was located in Hart- 

1 Original Distribution, p. 368; Hartford Land Records, I: 162. 

2 Tin Witchcraft Delusion in Colonial Connecticut, by John M. Taylor. 



PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 283 

ford, it is probable that the entire number from these towns, 
which were hung in this delusion, suffered in Hartford. 
Alse Young of Windsor was the first unhappy victim, but 
the court records give us no information concerning her 
trial. On the cover of Mathew Grant's Diary, Dr. J. Ham- 
mond Trumbull discovered the record "May 26. 47 Alse 
Young was hanged." This supplies the blank in Winthrop's 
History: "One of Windsor arraigned and exe- 
cuted at Hartford for a witch." 1 So far as known, this was 
the first execution for witchcraft in New England. The 
next victim was Mary Johnson of Wethersfield. In 1646, 
she had been sentenced to be whipped for theft, probably at 
Hartford, which was to be repeated a month later at Wethers- 
field. On her own confession, she was indicted by a jury 
December 7, 1648, as guilty of "familiarity with the Deuill." 
Mather says, "Her confession was attended with such 
convictive circumstances that it could not be slighted." 2 
She confessed, he says, that she had murdered a child, and 
committed other faults of licentiousness. For some months 
before her execution, she was imprisoned at Hartford, under 
the care of William Ruscoe. A son was born to her while 
there. Nathaniel Ruscoe, the jailor's son, agreed with her 
before her death to bring up and educate the child, which 
agreement was afterward sanctioned by the court. The 
jailor was paid £6 10s. for twenty-four weeks' charges to 
June 6, 1650, from which fact it is inferred that she was 
executed on that date. Rev. Samuel Stone ministered to 
her while in prison, and it is said that she became a penitent 
woman. She was evidently a poor, misguided creature, 
who accounted for her fault according to the superstition 
of the age. 

After the execution of John and Joan Carrington of 
Wethersfield in 1651, and Lydia Gilbert of Windsor in 1654, 
a witchcraft tragedy was enacted among Hartford residents. 
It is one story and has been written and published by Dr. 
Charles J. Hoadly. 3 Nine persons were involved, largely 

1 Annie Eliot Trumbull, in The Hartford Courant, Dec. 3, 1904; Winthrop's 
History, II: 374. 

2 Mather's Magnolia, Bk. VI, pp. 71-78. 

3 "A Case of Witchcraft in Hartford" in Connecticut Magazine, Nov., 1899, 
pp. 557-561. 



284 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

through the statements of Rebecca Greensmith. She had 
been the wife of Abraham Elsen of Wethersfield, who died 
in 1648. Then she married Jarvis Mudge, and was a widow 
when she married the unfortunate Nathaniel Greensmith. 
Those who were implicated constituted a group of local 
acquaintances, some of whom had a repute for misdemeanors 
or immorality. Their names were Nathaniel and Rebecca 
Greensmith; Elizabeth, the wife of Richard Seager; An- 
drew Sanford and Mary his wife; William Ayres and his 
wife; Judith Varlett and James Walkley. Of Rebecca 
Greensmith, Rev. John Whiting wrote to Increase Mather 
that she was "a lewd, ignorant and considerably aged 
woman." Her husband had twice been convicted of theft. 
The court had once censured him for lying. Elizabeth 
Seager left a record of shameless crime, being guilty of blas- 
phemy and adultery. These were the leaders. The others 
kept such company. One night they had a merry-making, 
under a tree on the green near Rebecca Greensmith's house. 
James Walkley, Goodwife Ayres and Goody Seager were 
present. They all danced and had a bottle of sack. Other 
nocturnal gatherings were held. Suspicions were awakened 
in the neighborhood. Nathaniel Greensmith had a small 
home-lot, house and barn, recently purchased. It was 
located just south of our present Barnard Park, on which 
green the dance of the witches was doubtless held. 1 Com- 
plaint had been made to the town that he had set his barn 
on common land. James Walkley had a house-lot on the 
north side of the road from George Steele's to the South 
Meadow. Sanford and Ayres apparently lived on North 
Main Street. The crisis came in the spring of 1662, with 
the accusations of a young daughter of John Kelley, uttered 
in the delirium of sickness. The child died. Immediately, 
the neighborhood was busy with reports that she had been 
bewitched unto death. The magistrates examined several 
of those accused. Nathaniel Greensmith then sued William 
Ayres for slandering his wife. She and her husband were 
soon arrested. The defendent Ayres, his wife, and James 
Walkley, took refuge in flight. Ann, the daughter of John 
Cole, had strange fits about that time. Her examination 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, II: 91; Original Distribution, pp. 268, 269. 



PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 285 

by the ministers, Samuel Hooker of Farmington, Samuel 
Stone, Joseph Haynes and John Whiting of Hartford, only 
increased the mystery and augmented the excitement. On 
June 6th, Andrew Sanford was indicted for witchcraft. 
The jury disagreed. A week later, Mary Sanford was in- 
dicted and found guilty. This action furthered the ultimate 
indictment of Nathaniel and Rebecca Greensmith, which 
occurred December 30, 1662. They were both found guilty. 1 
The woman's testimony implicated her associates. On 
January 6th, Mary Barnes of Farmington was indicted, 
and was also found guilty. The tragic scenes, which closed 
this horrible episode of our local history, can be all too 
clearly imagined. Mary Sanford was convicted first, and 
was not long detained in jail. Like some weird spectre of 
the spirit world, she disappeared. Goodwife Barnes was 
confined three weeks, for which Daniel Garret, the jail- 
keeper, was allowed 21s., to be paid by Goodman Barnes. 
The jailor was also allowed 6s. a week for keeping Nathaniel 
and Rebecca Greensmith, to be paid out of his estate. His 
inventory states that he was executed January 25, 1 662-3. 2 
Hutchinson quotes the diary of Goffe, the regicide, under 
the date January 20th, as saying "three witches were con- 
demned at Hartford." On this date the Particular Court 
met. He also says of Rebecca Greensmith: "Upon this 

1 The indictment reads: "Nathaniel Greensmith, thou art here indicted by the 
name of Nathaniel Greensmith for not having the feare of God before thine eyes; 
thou hast entertained familiarity with Satan, the grand Enemy of God and Man- 
kind, and by his help hast acted things in a preter naturall way beyond human 
abilities in a naturall course, for which according to ye Law of God and ye established 
laws of this Commonwealth thou deserveth to die." The form of the information, 
used in the Superior Court for many years, assigned all crimes to the instigation 
of the Devil. The magistrates at this trial were as follows: Mr. [Mathew] Allyn, 
moderator, Mr. [Samuel] Wyllys, Mr. [Richard] Treat, Mr. [Henry] Woolcot, 
Danll Clark, Sec, Mr. Jo. Allyn. The jury were: Edw. Griswold, Walter Ffiler 
Ensign [Nicholas] Olmstead, Sam" Boreman, Goodm [Gregory] Winterton, John 
Cowles, Sam 11 Marshall, Sam 11 Hale, Nathan 11 Willet, John Hart, John Wads- 
worth, Robert Webster. The execution of criminals then devolved upon the Mar- 
shal, who was Jonathan Gilbert. One of the accused is said to have seen this 
worthy official in a dream, which seemed to presage the end. He was the first of 
three appointed to settle Greensmith's estate. Jonathan Gilbert succeeded Thomas 
Stanton in this office, and was followed by George Grave. 

2 January 25th was a Sabbath, and we can not think the execution would have 
occurred on that day. Perhaps the court met on the 20th and they were executed 
on the 23rd, the latter date being incorrectly copied. 



286 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

confeffion flie was executed, and two more of the company 
were condemned at the same time." x The scene was doubt- 
less accompanied by the public sensation, common to such 
occasions in England. It was the last time any witches 
were hung in Connecticut, and forty years before the excite- 
ment over the Salem witchcraft. Elizabeth Seager was 
indicted on the same day with Mary Barnes, and twice later. 
In 1665 she was convicted, but the Court of Assistants 
found a way to release her, after a year's imprisonment. It 
seems probable that the witches were executed outside of 
the town-plot, on the road from the Cow Pasture into the 
Country. There the gallows of early times was located. 
On March 10, 1711-12, John Read sold to John Olcott a 
tract of about seven acres, bounded south on the "highway 
leading out of Hartford town towards Symsbury," now 
Albany Avenue. It is described in the deed as "near the 
houfe lately built by Joseph Butler, near where the Gallows 
ufed to stand." 2 The place is near enough identified as on 
the north side of the avenue, on the east end of the present 
Goodwin lot. There, a large elm tree on a rise of ground 
might well memorialize the place where this tragedy of 
Hartford's early history was enacted. 

The usual place of punishment for minor offenses was in 
the meeting-house yard. Near the church were the stocks, 
the pillory and the whipping-post. The stocks was a timber 
frame in the holes of which the feet, or feet and hands of 
criminals, were confined. In the pillory, the head and hands 
were held, the victim being often compelled to stand. To 
the whipping-post the criminal was fastened while the lash 
was applied. All these punishments were very common. 
It was not so much the pain as the disgrace that was depended 
on for correction. On lecture day, just before the ringing 
of the first bell, the criminal was put in the stocks or pillory, 
where the congregation could see him. The passer-by 
sometimes railed at him, and the children pointed their 
fingers at him. An old writer says, "The jeers of a theatre, 
the pillory and the whipping-post are very near akin." 

At first, the Colony had no jail. Prisoners may have been 
committed to the keeping of William Ruscoe. On April 10, 

1 Hutchinson's History, II: 17. 2 Hartford Land Records, 2: 228. 



PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 287 

1640, the General Court passed the following vote: "For- 
asmuch as many stubborne & refractory Persons are often 
taken w th in these libertyes, and no meet place yet p r epared 
for the detayneing & keepeing of such to their due & deserued 
punishment, It is therefore Ordered that there shall be a 
house of Correction built, of 24 foote long & 16 or 18 foote 
broad, w th a Cellar, ether of wood or stonne, according as 
Mr. Talcotte, Ed: Stebing, Tho: Ford and James Boosy 
shall Thinke meete, who are chosen by the Courte to lette 
out the worke, appoynt out the place & to order and directe 
whatsoeuer occations and businesses that may fall out for 
the compleate finishing the said house, w ch is to be done 
by the nexte Courte, in September." The committee located 
this edifice in the northeast corner of the yard, north of 
the meeting-house. This was long known as "the prison 
lot." Here they erected a building, variously called a "house 
of correction," "jail" or "prison." The repairs made upon 
it indicate that it was of wood. In 1652, Richard Goodman 
and John Pratt were appointed "for carrying on the neces- 
sary worke about the prison house." The amount to be 
expended suggests extensive improvements, or a new build- 
ing. An addition was ordered in 1664, which William 
Wadsworth and Joseph Fitch were to erect at the Colony's 
expense. A well was provided in 1692. The lot was enclosed 
with pales, and some prisoners were given the freedom of 
this yard. Such inmates as could, maintained themselves 
in prison. In 1647, William Ruscoe was given 40s. toward 
his charges for keeping inmates. Some prisoners took with 
them such articles of furniture as they needed. Others found 
very poor and uncomfortable lodgings on the floor, or in a 
prisoner's bunk. Nathaniel Greensmith had there "One 
Bed well filled," "One Boulster," "One Rugg, one Blan- 
kett" and "Two Blanketts," valued at £6 10s. The cellar 
was utilized for dungeons. Prisoners were kept there in 
gyves or fettered with chains. In 1679, Henry Green of 
Farmington, a murderer, died there, and William Edwards 
was paid two shillings for his burial. Others, doubtless, 
died in prison at various times. These would most likely 
have been buried in the prison yard, according to custom. 
In the author's opinion, the graves discovered on this lot 



288 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

some years ago were those of prisoners. Daniel Garret 
succeeded William Ruscoe as keeper in 1654, and continued 
in office many years. The annual salary was £10. In 1090, 
Evan Davy was the keeper. He was succeeded the next year 
by Thomas Hancox, who also had a long term of service. 

This early house of correction, with the alterations of 
nearly sixty years, must have presented an interesting ap- 
pearance towards the close of the seventeenth century. 
Within that low rambling building, many prisoners of all 
sorts had been confined. Some of them made their escape. 
One of these was the Niantic Indian Moween, charged with 
murdering a Pequot girl. 1 In 1664, John Scott took his 
leave, without paying Daniel Garret for twelve weeks diet. 2 
William Mathews, convicted of rape and sentenced to death, 
made his escape in 1693, by the assistance of William 
Wright, an Indian, and John Rogers Jr. of New London. 
The confederates were arrested and imprisoned. The latter 
was also charged with the burning of New London's meeting- 
house. 3 They were allowed at times to walk at liberty, for 
which the keeper was censured by the Governor and Council. 
This prison edifice could not have been very secure, except 
for criminals in chains or confined in its dungeons. In 1698 
the need of a new building was recognized, for which the old 
site was used. The Court of Assistants authorized Captain 
Joseph Whiting, treasurer of the Colony, and Captain Wil- 
liam W T hiting, high sheriff, to provide materials for such a 
building and do the work at the public expense. The size 
of this structure is unknown. It was larger than the old 
prison, and perhaps partly of brick. Three years later, the 
General Assembly ordered that it be maintained by a rate 
levied by the County Court. The keeper was then allowed 
4s. "for comitment of a prisoner and discharge" and 2s. 6d. 
a week for the "diet." Many an interesting tale gathers 
about this prison, often called "Hartford Gaol." In 1722, 
it was the scene of the famous Hartford Riot, on account of 
land disputes in the Hop River country. The keeper, Thomas 
Meakins, refusing to release Captain Jeremiah Fitch of 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, II: 178, 188, 196, 197 n., 213, 232. 

2 Ibid., I: 436. 

3 State Archives: Crimes and Misdemeanors, I: 197-201. 



PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 289 

Norwich, the door was burst open and all the prisoners 
escaped. 1 Here some of the Separatists were confined during 
that religious controversy. On a lecture day in November 
1743, Rev. Elnathan Whitman preached a sermon "per- 
vious to y e execution of Jack and Kate, two negroes y e one 
condemned to die for a rape y e other for murdering her 
child." 2 Perhaps executions at that time were conducted 
in the jail yard. John Barnard was then the keeper. During 
Revolutionary times the gallows stood near the junction of 
Zachary's Lane, now Vernon Street, and Rocky Hill. The 
place was called "Gallows Hill." 3 Indeed, the criminal 
history of that period, which is associated with this prison, 
would fill a volume and give no very favorable impression 
of the times. 

Meanwhile, a more economical and reformative treat- 
ment of certain classes of offenders had found favor. 
The courts had recognized from the first the wholesome 
influence of work upon the wayward. It was ordered for 
some, under masters. In certain instances, it was conducted 
in the prison. The evils of the times now demanded a work- 
house. During the first quarter of the eighteenth century, 
"rogues, vagabonds, sturdy beggars, and other lewd, idle, 
dissolute, profane and disorderly persons" increased. 
In 1727, the General Assembly recited these conditions, when 
a law was enacted providing for a Colony work-house. To 
this institution the above classes could be committed. The 
insane, also, could be sent there, and, in 1730, persons sen- 
tenced to perpetual confinement were transferred to it. A 
master was to have charge, and conduct the work done by 
the inmates. Each of them was allowed two-thirds of his 
earnings to pay for support and necessary materials. The 
court might apply all one's earnings to maintain his family. 
To further the self-support of this work-house, overseers 
were appointed in 1737. At the same time, the year 1741 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, VI: 332, 333, 341, 375; em. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 
78; Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull, in the Hartford Evening Press, Oct. 1860. 

2 Wadsworth's Diary, p. 106; Hartford County Court Papers in State Library. 
The indictments in these as in other similar cases charged that they had been 
"instigated by the Devil." 

3 The Hartford Times, Aug. 8, 1890. 



290 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

was named as the limit of this experiment. 1 The original 
act located this institution in Hartford, if the town or pro- 
prietors provided land for the purpose. Accordingly, on 
July 8, 1729, John Edwards conveyed to Nathaniel Stanley, 
John Austin and John Skinner, a committee of the town, 
"for y e use of y e Inhabitants and proprieto rs ," a triangular 
piece of land containing one-half acre, located on the west 
side of Trumbull Street. 2 It was originally the northeast 
corner of Thomas Stanton's home-lot, and is the present site 
of the Case, Lockwood and Brainard Company building. 
The above committee were named by the General Assembly 
to erect thereon a building "of fifty foot in length and 
thirty-two foot in breadth and fourteen foot between 
joynts." It stood length-ways on Trumbull Street. To 
prevent the escape of prisoners and facilitate the work, a 
yard was made about it in 1737. The Court records give 
the names and offenses of some who were confined in this 
work-house. It failed to become self-supporting and, in 
1742, the General Assembly authorized the Hartford County 
Court to transfer its inmates to the common gaol, north of 
the square, to be kept and employed there as in the work- 
house. 3 

This institution was revived in 1750, by the law that 
appears in the revision of that date providing for county 
work-houses. The old building was put to this use. An 
additional act in 1753 directed the County Court "to put 
the same in good repair and order" for this purpose. 4 Other 
counties, which had no building, were not so ready to comply 
with the law. At this time Hartford County needed a new 
gaol. On February 13, 1753, the court therefore ordered the 
erection of one "near the south end of the work-house," 
and authorized the sale of its interest in the prison lot or 
old gaol. 5 This plan was accomplished. Thus the building 

1 Conn. Col. Bee., VH: 128-130,345,530,531; VIII: 137-139; Poor Law of 
Conn., by Dr. E. W. Capen, pp. 61-66. 

2 Conn. Col. Bee., VII: 240, 241; Original Distribution, pp. 329, 436, 438 n.; 
Hartford Land Records, 5: 132. 

3 Conn. Col. Ree., VIII: 505. 
* Ibid., X: 159-161, 206. 

Hartford County Court Records, Feb. 13, 1753; Hartford Town Votes, I: 184, 
216; Hartford Land Records, 1: 70; 7: 548; 9: 363; 11: 295. 



PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 291 

originally erected in 1729 for the Colony work-house, and 
the Hartford County gaol ordered in 1753, came to occupy 
the same lot on Trumbull Street — a fact that has caused 
much confusion. As places of confinement, however, they 
were distinct. The classes above specified were committed 
to the work-house, which was conducted as in former times. 
For this, an assistant and a justice, or any two justices, 
received final jurisdiction in 1769. 1 Criminals and some 
others temporarily confined were kept in the gaol. As both 
institutions were under county authority, there was doubt- 
less an interchange of courtesies between them. In 1785, 
the sentence of a horse thief was to ride the wooden horse 
half an hour and receive fifteen stripes in the square, and 
then be confined "in the gaol and the work-house" for three 
months, to be taken out every Monday morning for the first 
month, receive ten stripes and again ride his "oken stud." 2 
Apparently, the two buildings were referred to, in some 
instances, as the gaol, jail or prison. Moll Rogers in 1757, 
and others at sundry times, escaped from this gaol. In 
1764, a plot was formed in Colchester, by one Titus Carrier, 
to "pull Down, Demolifh and Deftroy it" and release the 
prisoners. Here, Moses Dunbar was imprisoned in 1777 for 
high treason, David Farnsworth and John Blair in 1778 
as spies and counterfeiters, and Alexander McDowell in 
1781 for desertion — all of them hung, probably on Gallows 
Hill. A yard was built in connection with it in 1776, 
for the safe-keeping of Revolutionary prisoners, who were 
confined there during the war. It seems probably that during 
this period both buildings were used for this purpose. 

On February 28, 1792, the County Court, in view of the 
decayed state and insufficiency of this gaol, appointed 
Roger Newberry, William Moseley and John Caldwell a 
committee, with authority to purchase more land, if neces- 
sary, to sell, lease or use the materials of the old buildings 
and erect a new gaol or prison house. 3 Additional land 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, XIII: 237, 238. 

2 Barber's Conn. Hist. Coll., p. 56. In 1775 a man was committed "unto the 
Keeper of the Gaol . . . within the said Prifon." 

3 Hartford County Court Records, Feb. 28, 1792, March 4, Aug. 31, Sept. 18, 
1793, June 3, 1794; The Connecticut Couranl, Oct. 22, 1792. 



292 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

was bought on the west, the southern part of which was 
sold, and the remainder, with the old lot, constituted the 
new prison tract. 1 During the construction work, prisoners 
were sent to Middletown gaol. The building was "nearly 
finished " when, on April 6, 1794, it was set on fire by Betsy 
Goodhue, an insane woman confined in one of its apart- 
ments, who perished in the flames. 2 Its brick walls were 
not greatly damaged. In the autumn it was completed, 
and its "liberties" round about were defined. The prison 
occupied the lower part. In the upper stories there was a 
tavern that was called "City Hall." There had been, 
probably, such apartments in the former building, for, on 
February 13, 1792, Jonathan Janes, who carried on the 
shoemaking business there, advertised "good accommoda- 
tions for travelers and good keeping for horses at the City 
Hall in Hartford," fifty rods west of the Court House. 
This was a unique combination, but it was a convenience to 
many a poor debtor confined there. There is a death notice 
of one such, who ended his days "in the City Hall" by 
swallowing three ounces of laudanum. 3 In those days, 
many respectable people were sent to the gaol for such 
reasons, and it is believed that the main purpose and use 
of this tavern was to give them opportunities for self-support 
while there. It certainly attained that distinction and was 
never a popular social resort. Rooms there were occa- 
sionally used temporarily as business offices. Here Elias 
Morgan conducted the drawing of the State House lottery 
in 1795. 4 Perhaps, also, the County Court met there for a 
time. 5 This edifice was sold in 1836, to Case, Tiffany and 
Company, and demolished in 1866 to make way for the 
widening of Pearl Street and the present Case, Lockwood 
and Brainard Company building. In 1837, the jail was 
removed to No. 107 Pearl Street, where it remained until 
1874, when it was located on Seyms Street. 
Throughout colonial times the relief of the poor was 

1 Hartford Land Records, 19: 450, 457; 20: 265; Maps in City Engineer's 
Office, Books 65: 14; 67: 9,10; 69: 6, 14. 

2 The Connecticut Courant, April 7, 1794. 

3 Ibid., June 11, 1798. 4 Ibid., March 9 and 23, 1795. 

6 "The gaol which has the court house on the top of it is the most elegant build- 
ing in the city." — John Gerrond's Travels. 



PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY 293 

conducted by the town, without any institution. It con- 
sisted in grants of land, labor, provisions, wood and medical 
attendance. Besides this, there was much neighborly 
charity. Children without parental care were bound out. 
The customs of marriage really relieved social conditions 
to a large degree. Many a poor widow and her children 
thus found another home, after a shockingly brief interval 
of mourning. These children were practically placed out 
in another home with a new father. The records prove that 
the results were remarkably good, which should be remem- 
bered in a criticism of their marriage customs. With the 
Revolutionary War, the most extreme conditions of need 
were soon thrust upon every community, because of the 
number of men that were absent in the army. The town 
of Hartford, like others, met this situation with liberal 
bounties and the extensive practice of out-door alms by a 
special committee. After the war, there were many widows 
and orphans to be provided for, and how this relief was 
accomplished is a matter of wonder. There were also 
other broken fragments of society, not so easily placed. 
It is not strange, therefore, that there was a demand for an 
almshouse where a few could be made comfortable. In 
1782, the selectmen were authorized "to build a small 
Houfe for the ufe of Neil McLean the old Soldier as long as 
he lives, . . . the same to remain to the Town for a Poor 
Houfe for the ufe and dispose of the Town." He was 
probably a French War veteran, for he was known in 1772 
as "Old Niel the Soldier." The location of this house was 
south of the gaol, on the bank of the Little River. 1 This 
veteran lived only about four months. Probably the 
town's purpose was carried out, and this was their first 
almshouse. It was evidently too small for their need. 
In January 1785, a committee was appointed to memorial- 
ize the General Assembly for liberty to erect an almshouse 
and tax the town for its support. The request was granted, 
and before the autumn, such an edifice had been erected on 
the east side of the road to Windsor, on land owned by the 
town. 2 This site was nearly opposite the North Cemetery. 

1 Hartford Toivn Votes, MS. Vol. II: 291. 

2 Ibid., MS. Vol. II: 309, 311, 312; Hartford Land Records, 18: 290. 



294 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

The conditions changed, and this property was sold in 1797, 
to reduce the town's expenses. The value of an almshouse, 
however, had been proved. In 1812, an act was passed by 
the General Assembly, upon the town's petition, authoriz- 
ing it to establish, maintain and regulate a workhouse — 
a privilege that had been granted earlier to some towns and 
was extended to all the next year. The town's vote shows 
that it then had in mind a temporary almshouse and work- 
house. 1 The former almshouse on Windsor Avenue was 
secured for this purpose. There this dual institution con- 
tinued until 1822. The town then purchased the Kelsey 
farm, "a mile and a half northwest of the State House." 
It there established both a work-house and an almshouse. 2 
These were in separate buildings, and the old distinction 
between the two classes and their treatment was maintained 
to times within the memory of the living. 

The work-house as a correctional institution was the 
product of colonial times — the natural outcome of an early 
belief in the reforming effect of hard labor for certain classes. 
Under the successive administration of colony, county and 
town, it accomplished a valuable service. The measure- 
ment of its success by their commercial standard of self- 
support, and the general neglect of education and training 
in its treatment of the inmates, impaired its usefulness. 
Those classes for which it was intended seem to have been 
clearly distinguished from criminals, on the one hand, and 
the poor, on the other; and yet there was always the ten- 
dency to combine it with their punishment of the former in 
the jail, and their charity for the latter in the almshouse. 
The fundamental principle of their work-house has been 
adopted for good by modern reformatory institutions. 
It has also been departed from for evil, by the indiscrimi- 
nate commitment of certain classes to our jails. 

1 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. Ill: 56, 65, 69, 83. 

2 Ibid., MS. Vol. Ill: 102, 103, 105. 



CHAPTER XVIII 
TRADE AND SHOPS 

The early emigrants to New England were well aware of 
their dependence upon trade for subsistence and develop- 
ment. They also thought it would be profitable. It is 
doubtful if they realized how little they would have for 
export, and how much they would need for themselves. 
Their descendants can hardly understand what it must 
have meant to them to begin life anew under primitive 
conditions. In their homes there were few of those tem- 
poral luxuries, common in an older civilization. Much of 
their diet was new. The scant supply of goods necessitated 
care and economy in their dress. They must have missed, 
most of all, some of those common tools, implements, 
utensils and other articles of farm or household use, so 
easily obtained in England. With these, their inventories 
show they were poorly supplied. These were the things 
they used most, and that wore out soonest. Such circum- 
stances, however, were not on the whole detrimental to 
New England life. Necessity thus put them in the way of 
using their own resources. To bring manufactured articles 
across the sea, they must send over their own products, or 
find a market elsewhere. It was a fortunate circumstance 
that beaver skins found such favor in England. The 
settlers profited greatly by the demand for pipe staves in 
the West Indies. With these and a few other products, 
they established an export trade. As time passed, they 
obtained by this means the things they had left behind in 
England. Nor was this all. Their need of many articles 
stimulated them to invent simple devices in their place, 
just as a camping life does to-day. What they could not 
thus provide, they found ways of getting on without. This 
tended to simplicity of life. Their needs resulted, also, in 
perpetuating, through apprentices, the trades in which some 



296 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

of the early generations were skilled masters. So, the 
chair or chest of a colonial ancestor stands for something 
more than an ancient pattern. It represents achievement. 
Above all, these circumstances were the means of develop- 
ing home industries, by which many of their essential needs 
were supplied during colonial times. The old spinning- 
wheel is not a mere curiosity. It is an emblem of that 
era of American manufactures, in which the skill and dili- 
gence of women were important factors. Such industries 
were economically, socially and morally a great blessing to 
colonial homes. Leaving much to the reader's general 
acquaintance with the subject, we turn to the particular 
features of trade and shops within the town of Hartford. 

The General Court, on July 5, 1643, granted liberty for a 
market to be held at Hartford weekly, on Wednesday, 
"for all manner of comodityes that shall be brought in, and 
for cattell, or any marchandise w h soeuer." The land 
records locate the site of this market at the southeast corner 
of the meeting-house yard. It is mentioned as a north 
bound of Jonathan Gilbert's purchase in 1663. In 1645, the 
Court also granted liberty for two fairs to be kept yearly 
at Hartford, upon the second Wednesday of May and 
September. The purpose of these occasions can be best 
understood through an introduction to contemporary 
English customs. "A fair," says Brand, "is a greater kind 
of market, for the more speedy and commodious providing 
of such things as the place stands in need of. They are 
generally kept twice a year." 1 Thomas Warton states 
that "antiently before flourishing towns were established 
and the necessaries of life, from the convenience of com- 
munication and the increase of provincial civility, could be 
procured in various places, goods and commodities of 
every kind were chiefly sold at fairs: to these as to one 
universal mart, the people resorted periodically, and sup- 
plied most of their wants." 2 Such were the conditions in 
the river towns. Hartford, being the center settlement, 
was thus selected as a place for weekly trade. We are not 
to consider this market, therefore, as merely an early ex- 

1 Hrand's Popular Antiquities, II: 453. 

- Warton's Hist, of English Poetry, 1840, II: 55 n. 



TRADE AND SHOPS 297 

ample of that institution known later by that term. It 
was the same kind of an occasion the settlers had known in 
England. One might call it a great country store, kept 
for a day in an open area, where "all manner of comodityes" 
would be likely to find a customer. Thither the surplus of 
their produce, herds or looms was brought, and presumably 
many second-hand articles. As they had at first no stores, 
it was a public necessity, as well as a convenience. Prob- 
ably the early traders of Hartford sold goods there. This 
custom was maintained for many years. The market- 
place is mentioned in a deed of 1763. Fairs were revived, 
generally, that year. Jonathan Trumbull petitioned the 
General Assembly for a fair at Lebanon, stating that "Fairs 
and Markets are found Beneficial & serviceable to facilitate 
the Transaction of Business." A similar petition for one 
at Windham expressly appeals to the English custom and 
its advantages. As shops and stores increased, however, 
this early market in Hartford came to be devoted to the 
sale of such produce as could not always be sold elsewhere. 
It is certain that this ancient privilege of periodical traffic 
in the square, or near the bridge, continued to quite recent 
times. It survived within the memory of many, in the sale 
of poultry in the square at Thanksgiving time. It is said 
that the drop curtain of a theatre or circus, long ago estab- 
lished in the rear of the American House, "represented the 
old State House and grounds, with farmers and their carts 
and oxen in the foreground on Central Row." The people 
seem to have regarded this as an inherited right. One reason 
given for the establishment of the bridge market, built in 
1811 upon an arch on the west side of Main Street bridge, 
was the obstruction of the highway at its south end by the 
wagons of venders, who gathered there to sell their mer- 
chandise. This public need resulted later in the erection 
of the city's markets. 1 

When their early market or fair was established, there 
were in Hartford several merchants, who had in their 
homes or outbuildings such articles as were used in trade 
or were sold to the settlers. Their early traffic was with 
the Indians for corn or beaver skins. The General Court 

Ktfem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 368; Hartford Land Records, 22: 98,46(5. 



298 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

sent out its agents to obtain corn. In 1638, the exclusive 
right to trade for beaver on the river was given to certain 
individuals. William Whiting and Thomas Stanton secured 
it for Hartford. Governor Hopkins obtained a special 
privilege of trade at Warranoke in 1640. Traffic with the 
Indians on Long Island was restrained in 1642, though 
Thomas Stanton and Richard Lord were allowed to make 
one voyage. The settlers were then in need of articles and 
goods, which they hoped to secure in the older colonies. 
Protests were made, however, by Massachusetts and Plym- 
outh, that their markets were being overfilled. Hence, 
Connecticut traders sought a foreign market. In 1644, an 
agreement was made with Governor Hopkins and William 
Whiting, by which they were to pay a fixed price for corn, 
and have the sole privilege of transporting it to foreign 
parts. 1 This restrictive policy prevailed for years. Such 
Hartford merchants as acquired particular rights under it 
were profited. As export trade increased, they were the 
first to win its rewards. Comparatively little progress had 
been made in 1680, when answers were asked to certain 
queries of the Committee for Trade in England. 2 It was 
reported that there were then only about twenty petty 
merchants in the Colony. A few of these lived in Hart- 
ford. They had little traffic abroad. Provisions were sent 
to Boston or New York, and goods were received in return. 
Their products were occasionally shipped to Barbadoes, 
Jamaica, and other islands of the West Indies, in exchange 
for rum, sugar, and cotton wool. Trade with the Indians 
was then of little value. In 1730, the Colony again answered 
the queries of the Board of Trade in England. 3 Their trade 
was then reported as small. Horses and lumber were being 
exported to the West Indies. Goods for clothing, nails, 
scythes, pewter, brass and fire-arms were obtained in 
American ports, for provisions, tar and turpentine. In 
1747, the General Assembly passed an act for the regulating 
and encouragement of trade. It placed a duty upon goods, 
wares and merchandise above the value of fifteen pounds, 
imported from other American colonies, and offered a 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, I: 116, 117, 119. 

2 Ibid., Ill: 294 ff. 3 Ibid., VII: 580 ff. 



TRADE AND SHOPS 299 

bounty for such importations from Great Britain and 
Ireland. Another act provided for a duty upon lumber 
exported to neighboring governments. 1 The next year a 
protest was made by various merchants, among whom were 
Daniel Goodwin, John McKnight and Benjamin Payne of 
Hartford. It resulted in the suspension of the importation 
act. 2 As the years passed, their trade increased slowly, 
but Hartford was surpassed by other towns of the Colony. 
Its era as a commercial port did not arrive until after the 
Revolutionary War. 

At an early date, there were some small vessels, owned, 
in part at least, by Hartford merchants. The joint building 
of a ship by the towns was proposed in 1642. One was 
owned at Wethersfield in 1649. The inventory of Rev. 
Thomas Hooker, dated the latter year, notes that he had 
a venture abroad in the Entrance. This may have been 
the name of the pinnace, in which his friend, William Whit- 
ing, owned a part interest, valued at £40. A ship of that 
name was "of Hartford," later. At his death in 1662, 
Richard Lord owned one-sixteenth of the Society and one- 
eighth of the Desire. It is said that his son Richard Lord 
and John Blackleach bought the ship America in 1669, and 
it was then in the Connecticut River. 3 In 1680, only one 
ship was registered at Hartford. It was of ninety tons 
burden. Probably this was the Hartford Merchant, which 
Lord and Blackleach bought in Boston about 1676. 4 Major 
Jonathan Bull, at his death in 1702, owned one-half of the 
sloop The Two Brothers, and one-half of the sloop The 
Bonneta. Other Hartford merchants during this period 
probably had similar interests. In 1730, four vessels were 
registered at Hartford as follows: Sloop Mary, 60 tons, 
Captain David Williamson, master; sloop Rebeckah, 40 
tons; sloop Hampshire, 18 tons; and sloop Tryal, 35 tons. 

1 Ibid., IX: 283-287. 

2 Ibid., IX: 393-395; State Archives: Trade and Maritime Affairs, I: 135. 

3 Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 319 n. As the ship Mary and Elizabeth 
was of Hartford in 1671, it is conjectured that the owners renamed the America 
after their wives; that Richard Lord subsequently sold his interest to Giles Hamlin 
of Middletown, and that this was the ship of the same burden registered there in 
1680. 

4 State Archives: Private Controversies, II: 34, 44. 



300 THE COLOMAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Captain Jonah Gross commanded a sloop named the Tryal, 
in 1709. At his death in 1745, he had an interest in the 
Rebeckah. John Caldwell owned two-thirds of a brigantine 
in 1734. The report of 1730 states that two sloops had been 
recently built at Hartford, one of thirty tons and another 
of ninety tons. The latter was then being loaded, to be 
sold with her cargo at Bristol, England. These were 
probably built at the ship-yard on North Meadow Creek, 
where others had been earlier and many were later. The 
Colony's vessels increased from 74 in 1756, to 114 in 1761, 
and to 180 in 1774. Of these Hartford had a fair propor- 
tion for a river port. Several local merchants and ship 
captains had an interest in vessels that were engaged in the 
coast trade. In 1776, the following Hartford merchants 
petitioned for some relief from the taxes assessed upon 
their idle vessels: Daniel Goodwin, James Church, Samuel 
Olcott, James Caldwell, Samuel Marsh, Nathaniel Goodwin 
and John Chenevard. 

A closer acquaintance with the town's early merchants 
may be obtained through their inventories. William 
Whiting was one of the most prominent. In 1646, he and 
Governor Hopkins complained of wrongs done them by 
the Indians, who had stolen their goods and burned their 
warehouse. This building was probably located on the 
south bank of the Little River, near the landing. Their 
joint ownership suggests that they may have used it in 
connection with the exportation of corn, according to their 
agreement. William Whiting died in 1647. His inventory 
indicates that he had commercial interests abroad in Eng- 
land, Piscataqua, Virginia, Warranoke and Long Island. 
In a room or closet of his house, he seems to have kept a 
stock of goods for the purpose of trade. In wampum he 
had £39 9s.; in beaver £10 4s., and in ammunition and 
gunpowder £7 10s. He had "2 Racoone coats, 1 Wolf 
skin coate, 4 Bear skinns, 3 Mooss." Another item of 
"beauer, mooss and wampum" amounted to £250. Of 
articles used in trade, he had hoes, hatchets, shoes, nails, 
pins, paper, shot, fish-hooks, blades, looking-glasses, pewter, 
bottles, brass ladles, brushes, bells, thimbles, boxes, knives, 
scissors, combs, "Jewes harps," brass kettles, etc. His 



TRADE AND SHOPS 301 

dry-goods were "shagg cotton, stockings, hollands," "25 
yards greene tammy" and "13 peeces of duffles." The 
"howsing and land" of William Whiting in Hartford was 
valued at £400, and the same in Windsor at £300. The 
total of his inventory was £2854, and it was the largest 
estate that had been probated in Hartford at that date. 

Another early merchant was Captain Richard Lord. 
He had a warehouse in which he stored grain, soap, salt, 
lime, pitch, deerskins, whalebone, cotton wool, axes, shovels, 
spades and forks. A supply of kettles, brass, tin, wooden 
and earthen vessels, trenchers and pewter ware, he kept 
in the great closet of his house. At the time of his death 
he had debts due him in the surrounding towns, in New 
London, Norwich, Long Island, Delaware Bay, Newfound- 
land, Barbadoes and England. He died in 1662, at New 
London. His epitaph pays him this tribute: 

"To Marchantes as a Patterne he might stand, 
Adventring Dangers new by Sea and Land." 
His son Richard Lord was also a prosperous merchant, 
and was lost at sea in 1685. Such goods as glasses, nails, 
scales, dimity, cotton and woolen yarn, he kept in a shop 
on his premises. In an "old warehouse," he had sugar, 
tar and old iron. He also had grain and tar in Ensign 
Stanley's warehouse. Debts were due him at Haddam, 
New London, Narragansett and Antigua. In due time his 
son Richard Lord became a very wealthy merchant, dying 
in 1712. He had a warehouse at Mill Cove, New London. 

There were also in colonial times some inland traders, 
such as would now be termed "peddlers." These were 
often enterprising, shrewd and thrifty men. Along the 
highways of travel, and in remote settlements, they carried 
on a remunerative trade and amassed considerable property. 
John McKnight of Hartford thus began his career. He 
came from Glasgow in 1738, bringing with him English goods, 
valued at £60 sterling, "which he travelled with and Dis- 
posed of in this Colony." After two years experience as a 
trader, he was associated with Robert Sloan, a Hartford 
merchant. Then he went to New Haven, where he built 
two ships of about two hundred and fifty tons each, and was 
clerk of the company that extended Union or Long Wharf. 



302 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Later he returned to Hartford. At one time he had large 
means, and gave financial aid to the government; but he 
suffered through the depreciation of old tenor, and by being 
"unhappily bound for another man." In 1774, he peti- 
tioned the General Assembly for a peddler's license, intend- 
ing to return to his early occupation. 1 When he died, in 
1785 at East Windsor, the Courant termed him "an eminent 
trader," to which his extant account books bear witness. 

The method of conducting local trade in colonial times, 
was largely by the exchange of produce for the wares of the 
shopkeeper, or the labor of the mechanic. As early as 
1662, the town had a sealer of measures, and a sealer of 
weights was chosen in 1687. Old-fashioned steelyards were 
owned in nearly every home. All kinds of produce had a 
certain standard of value; and this varied very little during 
long periods. Ledgers, or account books, came to be 
kept in most families. Some of these have been preserved. 
At a convenient time, and often after a long interval, two 
parties would meet, compare their charges against each 
other, and the debtor would pay the balance in cash. This 
they called a "reckoning." In many instances, a record 
of the settlement was made on their books, and signed by 
both parties. Rev. Daniel Wadsworth, for instance, notes 
in his diary the fact and date of his reckoning with Robert 
Sloan, at his "shop," which was then on the north side of 
the square, where Captain Hezekiah Collyer afterwards 
lived. A certain shoemaker's ledger, covering the period 
from 1770 to 1784, shows that he was paid for shoes in 
walnuts, butter, sugar, salt, milk, wheat, rye, wood, various 
kinds of meat, cider and rum. Colonel Jeremiah Wads- 
worth discharged part of his debt with molasses; Colonel 
Wyllys by recording two deeds, and Dr. Solomon Smith by 
medical attendance. Rev. Nathan Strong turned in, on 
his account, beef and veal; and Josiah Clark six chairs. 

Throughout the entire colonial period, trade was con- 
ducted, occasionally, on the decks of vessels, lying in the 
river or at the landing. The reasons are obvious. A 
Co i irant advertisement on December 29, 1766, announces 
the sale of codfish, ironware, powder and shot, on board the 

1 State Archives: Revolution, V: 22. 



TRADE AND SHOPS 303 

schooner Squirrel, Ephraim Bartlet, master. The next 
December, the same master advertised a sale on the sloop 
Industry. Perhaps, he was accustomed to winter at Hart- 
ford for this purpose. In 1770, Enoch Reed, on board the 
sloop Tender lying at Hartford Ferry, advertised to buy 
flaxseed with rock salt. He was probably gathering a cargo 
for Ireland. There, also, the same year John Updike, on 
board the Dolphin, bought wheat. The schooner Peggy 
sold English goods at the same place in 1785. Such traffic 
illustrates the methods of early traders in their ventures 
abroad. It tended, in Hartford, to concentrate trade at 
the landing. This the warehouse perpetuated. Such build- 
ings were used generally for grain, iron, flaxseed and bulky 
merchandise. After King Philip's War, there was a gradual 
separation between export or river trade, and local traffic 
among the inhabitants. Thus the storekeeper claimed the 
business of the earlier trader. 

This advance was partly due to the development that had 
been going on, meanwhile, among the town's craftsmen. 
Nearly all the early settlers followed husbandry to some 
extent; but many of them worked at their trades. There 
was work for the carpenter, mason, blacksmith, shoemaker, 
tailor, tanner and glover. We know that these and other 
trades were represented among them. Their work was at 
first carried on in the home, or in a small building adjoin- 
ing, called a "shop." William Kelsey had a "working- 
shopp" on his lot in 1652. l Peter Bassaker was a smith, 
and made nails by hand. Such were sometimes called 
"nailers." In 1646 he had a shop on the north side of Pearl 
Street. He profanely expressed a hope of meeting some 
of the members of the church in infernal regions; but he 
appears to have met them the next lecture day, as they 
passed him in the pillory. 2 His shop went to his creditors. 
Nicholas Desborough was a carpenter or cabinet-maker, 
though he was afterwards accused of being a witch. His 
home was on North Main Street, near the tunnel. In 1660, 
he asked the town for liberty to build on the highway next 
his fence a shop sixteen feet square. His request was 

1 Original Distribution, p. 449. 

2 Ibid., pp. 311, 395; Conn. Col. Rec, I: 168, 169. 



304 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

granted. A committee was appointed in 1683, to assign 
Ebenezer Lewis a place to build a shop "for his trade of a 
smith." He also located near the tunnel. Doubtless, he 
used the smith's tools, which his grandfather William Lewis 
had secured from John Holloway and had willed to him. 1 
Such instances might be multiplied. Thus the shop where 
an artisan plied his trade, became a factor in the town's 
business life. Desirable locations were sought near the 
bridge, or along the banks of the riveret, and elsewhere. 
Such as built upon their own lots, often located in front of 
their houses, near the street. Sometimes their shops 
encroached upon the highway. As new houses came to 
be erected, especially on the square or Main Street, their 
builders yielded to the fashion, and, in their lower front 
rooms, many of the stores of later years were kept, as the 
records and advertisements prove. The rest of the house 
was occupied for household purposes. It was natural for 
these craftsmen to keep for sale those articles that their 
trade produced. Thus, the silversmith became the jeweller; 
the printer, the bookseller; and the tanner, the leather 
dealer. Instances are known where the produce such 
craftsmen received for their work led them, also, to become 
grocers. In this way, shopkeepers were multiplied. Nor 
was it long before others, who had no trade, seeing the oppor- 
tunity, established stores for the sale of such merchandise 
as they considered profitable. The more enterprising of 
these pushed out into the highway of traffic. In front of 
their shops they hung out the ancient swinging sign, with 
some symbol or name upon it. Thus, the town's main 
highways assumed a different appearance. The broad 
expanse of green, traversed by roadways and shaded by 
ancient trees, continued about the same; but along its sides, 
old farm-houses, which had defied innovations for many 
years, began to disappear. Newer houses, which were 
much better adapted for stores, were erected in their places. 
Quaint little shops were built in front of, or near those, that 
remained. As if to invite trade, their swinging signs bowed 
in the breezes to every passer-by; and the paths that led 

1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 202; Original Distribution, p. 72; Manwaring's 
Hartford Probate Records, I: 331. 



TRADE AND SHOPS 305 

to their doorways witnessed to their success. It was a 
picture not so different from some to be seen now in old 
English towns. 

The reader would, perhaps, become better acquainted with 
this business life of Hartford, if he were conducted along 
its main highway, as it was about the close of the colonial 
period. In general, the land records give us the names and 
location of residents along this street, and glimpses of their 
shops. Some buildings were erected by permission upon 
another's land, for which no lease was recorded. There 
were old homesteads that had adjoining shops, which were 
rented, from time to time, to various parties. Much may 
be gathered concerning their shops from advertisements in 
The Connecticut Courant. We have, also, to assist us 
Barber's "Plan of Main Street" during the Revolution, 
made with the assistance of certain aged men of his day. 1 

Let us set out from Amos Hinsdale's tavern, near the 
corner of Wyllys Street, and make Buckingham Street our 
next station. Mr. Hinsdale was by trade a wheelwright, 
and worked some as such. He acquired this property in 
1745, and lived there many years. In 1775, his neighbor 
next north was Captain Daniel Sheldon, who bought there 
in 1765. Beyond him, Ebenezer Crosby lived. Here, 
Consider Bowen had a shop later. He sold it in 1789, to 
Nathaniel S. Benton. Farther north, the property was 
undeveloped on the east side of the highway, then called 
the "Country Road." On the west side of the South 
Green, there was an open field. North of this, in 1774, 
William Adams, a shoemaker, had a small one-story shop. 
This was the southernmost lot of a tract owned by the 
Second Ecclesiastical Society. In 1636, about four acres 
here, extending north to the road from George Steele's to 
the South Meadow, were distributed to John Moody. 
His grandson, John Moody, sold the tract, in 1691, to the 
Second Church. It then had an "old houfe & Barns" upon 
it. The church committee, at the Society's desire, con- 
veyed it, in 1696, to Rev. Thomas Buckingham, from 
whose son, Joseph Buckingham Esq., by the deed of his 

1 Barber's Connecticut Historical Collections, pp. 48, 49; The Hartford Times, 
March 21, 1912; Crossing the Connecticut, p. 16. 



306 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

mother, Mrs. Ann Burnham, it returned as a gift, in 1762, 
to the Second Society. In view of the Society's purpose to 
lease this property, Barnabas Hinsdale made a survey of its 
several lots in 1774, with sketches of the houses upon them. 1 
On the lot next north of Adams's shop, there was a large 
two-story house, with chimneys at either end. It was that 
"once proposed to be given" to Rev. William Patten, at 
his settlement in 1767, and was called the "parsonage 
house." 2 Here Mr. Patten resided some years. On the 
north, there was a vacant lot. In 1783, Jonathan and James 
Steele, Jr., located on the south half, and Asa Francis on 
the north half. The next house was leased, in 1777, to Dr. 
William Jepson. It was a small two-story tenement, prob- 
ably correctly represented in Hinsdale's sketch. Here he 
kept a shop for the sale of drugs and medicines, and practiced 
his profession until his death. His inventory furnishes a 
reliable list of his stock. 3 This is a good illustration of an 
early drug store kept in the lower front room of a residence. 
On the north, there was a small gambrel-roof house, with a 
chimney at one end. This was the home of Barzillai Hud- 
son, a mason by trade, who secured a lease of it in 1774. 
At the same time, Ebenezer Watson, a printer, and the 
publisher of The Connecticut Courant, acquired the corner 
house, where the South Church now stands. Barber's 
plan indicates that this had been the home of "Parson 
Buckingham." Here, also, his son, Joseph Buckingham, 
Esq., had lived. According to the sketch, this was a two- 
story house of the usual pattern, with a large central chim- 
ney. Ebenezer Watson died September 16, 1777, and his 
widow, Hannah (Bunce) Watson, married February 11, 
1779, her neighbor, Barzillai Hudson. 4 The house in the 

1 Dr. Parker's History of the Second Church, p. 126. 

2 Ibid., p. 130; Hartford Land Records, 18: 353; 19: 518. 

3 The list of Dr. Jepson's drugs and medicines contains 136 items. He had a 
large assortment of bottles of various kinds, mortars, ladles, boxes, etc. A set of 
instruments for amputating, another for trephining, a case of dissecting knives, a 
set of teeth instruments, a case of five lancets, seven catheters, a case of couching- 
needles and a syringe are mentioned. His medical library contained 5i volumes. 
The Doctor had a horse, harness, sulky and saddle. These items give a good 
representation of the physician and surgeon at the close of colonial times. 

4 Ebenezer Watson, son of John and Bethia (Tyler) Watson, was born, May 1, 
1744, in Bethlehem, Conn. He married, (.1) Oct. 1, 1767, Elizabeth, daughter of 



TRADE AND SHOPS 307 

rear was leased in 1774, to Elisha Burnham, a blacksmith. 
In 1825, this corner again returned to the Second Ecclesi- 
astical Society. 1 

Proceeding northward to the Little River, there was, on 
the east side, the homestead of Captain Aaron Bull, a 
prominent South-side man in his day. He was one of the 
seven or more residents on Main Street, who had followed 
the sea. Barber calls him "Sea Captain and Shoe maker." 
His house was lately razed, being the well-known "Joseph 
Whiting house." The lower east room was called, in 1793, 
a " shop." Here, or in another building on this lot, Epaphras 
Bull once made and sold copper ware. Next north, was the 
Freeman Gross homestead. There had been, and perhaps 
was in 1775, a shop between it and the Richard Burnham 
house, farther north. It was bought from Mr. Gross in 

1737, by William Adams, "cabinet maker." He sold it, 
in 1739, to Isaac Tucker, who was of the same trade. In 
1743, it passed to Michael Burnham. The brook, else- 
where mentioned, flowed underneath this shop. In front 
of the Burnham house there was a blacksmith shop. Mi- 
chael Burnham, the son of Richard, had asked the town's 
liberty, in 1732, to erect a shop at the west end of his father's 
house, one and a half feet upon the highway, and the width 
of the house. Richard Burnham was a blacksmith. In 

1738, when the father conveyed his homestead to his son, 
he also gave him this "blacksmith shop" and his tools. 
This illustrates their custom, of erecting such shops in front 
of their homes. In 1753, William Hooker secured Michael 
Burnham's lot. Barber calls him "Old Will Hooker, 
Butcher and Blacksmith." His inventory in 1794, proves 
the statement. The butcher shop was on Arch Street. 

Richard Seymour of Hartford. She died April 11, 1770. He married, (2) Aug. 
1, 1771, Hannah, daughter of Aaron Bunce (John Watson of Hartford, by Thomas 
Watson, pp. 17, 24; Hartford Land Records, 14: 191; 21: 451). Barzillai Hudson 
son of William and Sarah (Fobes) Hudson, was born in 1741, in Bridgewater, Mass. 
He married, (1) Margaret, daughter of Zebulon Seymour of Hartford, a cousin of 
the first wife of Ebenezer Watson. These relations, doubtless, led to their occupa- 
tion of adjoining houses. Hannah Hudson died Sept. 27, 1807. Barzillai Hudson 
died Aug. 1, 1823 (Orcutt's Hist, of Torrington, p. 723; Mitchell's Hist, of Bridge- 
water, p. 201). 

1 Hartford Land Records, 21: 451; 22: 83,324; 43: 342. 



308 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

This homestead passed, in 1773, to Joseph Reed, who sold 
to Ezra Hyde the southern half, where the Thatcher house 
now stands. The northern half, on which Hooker's "old 
house" stood, was confiscated during the Revolutionary 
War, when Reed joined the enemy. In 1781, the State sold 
it to Enos Doolittle. North of this, Abraham Beach had 
bought, in 1762, from his stepfather, Dr. Jonathan Bull, 
one-half acre, and established there a grocery and dry-goods 
business. He offered this property for rent in 1765, with 
his "new dwelling-house," having a "fine store under the 
whole." The next year he sold, and William Hooker 
acquired it for a home in 1770, before selling his old home- 
stead. It passed to Dr. Daniel Butler in 1782. Mr. 
Beach became a well known Episcopal clergyman. 1 He 
is said to have been the author of the prospectus of The 
Connecticut C our ant in 1764. The homestead of Jonathan 
Bull was farther north, on the corner of Sheldon Street. 
On the west side of this section, Barber locates "Elisha 
Burnham's Blacksmith's shop," near Buckingham Street. 
Next north, was the Gideon Bunce homestead, so-called 
for several generations. Beyond this, Isaac Tucker bought 
land, in 1755. His shop had previously been in Cooper 
Lane, perhaps the one that formerly stood on the north- 
west corner of the Cone lot. His son Isaac acquired this 
property in 1769, and, until 1775, resided there, conducting 
a blacksmith shop. He was a soldier in the Revolution, 
and was killed in the battle of White Plains. The apparent 
excess of smiths may be accounted for by the demand for 
nails and other iron work, in later colonial times. Farther 
north, was the homestead of Rev. Elnathan Whitman, the 
lot extending to that of Thomas Seymour, Esq., where the 
school-house and horse sheds had stood in the highway. 
Next north, there was a shop, where Dr. Daniel Butler 
advertised to sell drugs in 1784. The following year, Colonel 
Miles Beach, silversmith, opened a shop there, at first with 
Isaac Sanford, and later with James Ward. His house 
was in the rear. Beyond the home of Samuel Howard, 
where Norman Butler in 1781 sold dry-goods, was Butler's 
Tavern, and then Elm Street, with its riverside shops and 

1 Dexter's Yale Biographies, II : 44G-449. 



TRADE AND SHOPS 309 

tanneries. Such was Main Street on the south side, after 
one hundred and forty years — a country road in truth, 
with some ancient houses, none of which were highly orna- 
mental, and a half dozen scattered shops. 

Going northward from the bridge to the square, we enter 
a busier section. On the east side, the corner lot had 
been sold by Mrs. Abigail Woodbridge, in 1750, to Timothy 
Shepard. She reserved an old house, which was succeeded 
by the home of Timothy and Josiah Shepard. In 1753, 
she sold the lot north of this to Ebenezer Balch, from 
whom it passed, in 1755, to James Caldwell, a sea captain. 
His house was partly devoted to trade, later. Charles 
Caldwell had a house here, which he sold in 1765 to William 
Gardiner. He removed his store from Exchange Corner to 
this house, and sold there English goods, china and glass- 
ware. At his death in 1766, from injuries received in the 
school-house explosion, this property passed to Benjamin 
Payne Esq., a lawyer. During the Revolutionary War, 
there was a store here, probably the one commonly called 
"the red store." Here, Kelliger and Tisdall, William 
Seymour and Daniel Jones and Co., were successively 
tenants. The north part of this lot was owned later by 
George Merrill, who in 1793 sold to Oliver Ellsworth, with 
his right in a twelve foot gangway, separating this from the 
home of Rev. Nathan Strong on the north. Beyond this, 
was the one-acre lot, which Mrs. Abigail Woodbridge sold 
in 1733 to Rev. Daniel Wadsworth. This had originally 
been a part of Elder William Goodwin's home lot, which 
extended south to the bank of the Little River. 1 It was 
also called the "Way Lot." On its north end the Wads- 
worth homestead was located. It is now the site of the 
W T adsworth Athenaeum. North of this, on the Flagg 
property originally owned by John Steele, Deacon Ezra 
Corning, in 1766, acquired from Samuel Olcott and John 
Chenevard one-half acre, with a mansion-house. Here, 
for many years, he carried on an extensive trade as a shoe- 
maker. The owner next north was Stephen Meers, of 
whom Barber says, he had "various trades." He sold 
English goods and exchanged them for homespun woollens. 

1 Original Distribution, pp. 23, 24, 513, 15, 60; Hartford Land Records, 1: 155* 



310 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

In 1772, he sold the southern part of his lot to John and 
Aaron Bradley, who came from Guilford. Aaron Bradley 
conducted here, in 1775, a shop for horseshoeing. In 1776, 
this property passed to William Ellery. It had then a 
dwelling-house upon it. North of Meers' store was the Flagg 
tavern. Just beyond it, was the store of Captain Thomas 
Hopkins, one of the best known in Revolutionary times. 
It encroached upon the highway. Here he sold English 
and India goods, sugar and spices. Barber calls him a 
"sea captain," as he also does John Chenevard, whose 
house was located on the north, where the Times Building 
now is. In 1769, Mrs. Margaret Chenevard sold wine, 
chocolate and snuff there. Next, on the north, was the 
homestead of John Butler, whose wife Susannah survived 
him. On the south part, which was leased to Hezekiah 
Merrill, Daniel and George Merrill erected, about 1773, 
a "Merchants Shop or Store," partly in the highway. It 
was twenty-two feet in breadth and forty feet in length, 
with its end toward the street. At this "new store," Dr. 
Hezekiah Merrill conducted the business of an apothecary 
and bookseller. He bought this property in 1775. The 
next year George Merrill succeeded him. His sign was 
the "Unicorn and Mortar." The unicorn was an ancient 
emblem of booksellers, and the mortar was considered appro- 
priate for the druggist. It is sometimes seen now. A few 
years later, Hezekiah Merrill acquired the north part of 
this homestead, "with an old Manfion" upon it. The 
house had disappeared, when he conveyed the lot in 1789 
to Oliver Ellsworth, with one-half the gangway on the south. 
The present wooden building was erected by the grantee 
soon afterwards. On the corner where the Hartford Trust 
Company Building now stands, Allen McLean had a shop 
in 1765, and advertised tamarinds for sale. Later, Dr. 
Neil McLean claimed this property, and it was occupied by 
Amasa Jones, a storekeeper. It became the site of John 
Caldwell's store. 

On the west side of Main Street, near the bridge, Captain 
John Skinner kept a shop for some years. His house was 
so near the highway that his piazza encroached upon it. 
Here, and elsewhere, he made sales at auction, sometimes, 



TRADE AND SHOPS 311 

doubtless, at the sign-post, as his predecessors had. 1 North 
of Wells Street, was the homestead of William Stanley, his 
house being located on the southern portion of the lot 
originally distributed to his ancestor, Sergeant Thomas 
Stanley. West of it were his outbuildings. He died in 
1786, and his real estate eventually passed to the Second 
Ecclesiastical Society. In 1701, Nathaniel Stanley had 
conveyed three roods at the north end of the original tract, 
next to the burying-ground, to his son-in-law, Nathaniel 
Hooker. South of this Hooker lot, in a building on William 
Stanley's land, Thomas Green and Ebenezer Watson 
established the third home of The Connecticut Courant, 
the location being described as "near the Great Bridge." 
Green became interested with his brother Samuel in New 
Haven in the autumn of 1767, and removed thither the 
following spring, leaving the management of the Courant 
to his partner; but he retained his connection with the 
newspaper until 1771. In 1768, they probably bought a 
building here that had been used for shops, as portions of 
it were afterwards. It was a two-story building, with 
north and south entrances. The first floor of the north 
side, or more likely of another building connecting with it 
on the north, was occupied in 1772 by Enos Doolittle, who 
made, cleaned and repaired clocks and compasses. The 
building of Green and Watson was about opposite the 
southwest corner of the Morgan Memorial. They were 
the owners of it in 1777, when Ebenezer Watson died. His 
inventory included "Half the Shop Belonging to Green & 
Watson — £30." It also mentioned Watson's interest in 
"The Printing Room over M r Doolittle's Shop— £30." As 
there were shops below, the Courant office occupied the 
second floor of both buildings. 2 From the accounts of the 

1 Conn. Col. Rec, III: 111; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, I: 299. 

2 Watson's inventory gives valuable information concerning an early printer's 
possessions. "At the Printing office: 1 Printing Press, £20-0-0; 11 Pair Printing 
Cafes @ 15/— 8-5-0; 2 Large frame for D° 20/, 7 Small D° 35/ — 2-15-0; Half the 
Shop Belonging to Green & Watson — 30-0-0; The Printing Room over M r . Doo- 
little's Shop — 30-0-0; Lye Trough 24/, Iron for Sign 10/ — 1-14-0; Large Iron 
Kittle 7/, Iron Pot 7/6—0-14-6; Iron Pounder 8/, Small Iron Kettle 2/ — 0-10-0; 
Blanks 3-10-0, Accompt Book 30/ — 5-0-0; Old Wrighting Desk 8/, Iron Skillet 
1/6 — 0-9-6; 37 Ream Printing Paper® 10/— 18-10-0; Saw 2/, 6 Small Gallies 
9/, 2 folio D° 6/ — 0-17-0; 1 Long D° 2/, Salmons Gazetter 4/— 0-6-0; 3 Chairs 



312 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

administrator, Barzillai Hudson, we learn that it had 
become necessary to remove these buildings, and they 
were sold, at a loss of £45 to the estate. This was probably 
soon after 1782. That year, Barzillai Hudson and Enos 
Doolittle acquired this portion of the Stanley lot, being one- 
third of an acre. There was then only a small building, 
recently erected for a barber shop, between the Stanley 
home and the printing-office. The purchasers divided this 
tract into four lots. The owners going north were, George 
Burnham, who sold in 1785 to Daniel Hinsdale, a former 
tenant of the printing-office ; John Dodd, Barzillai Hudson, 
and Enos Doolittle. The old buildings on the last two lots 
were soon removed. Hudson then erected a new building, 
in which the Courant was published for many years. A 
conveyance of 1792 describes this lot as that, "whereon 
the printing office now occupied by Hudson and Goodwin" 
stands. Its frontage was nineteen feet, and its depth 
fifty feet. Probably the building was narrow, and stood 
with its gable toward the street. It was removed in recent 
times. North of a ten foot passway, Enos Doolittle also 
erected a new building upon his lot. There he lived and 
carried on his trade as a clock-maker. Specimens of his 
work have survived. 1 

7/, 4 Compofing Sticks 48/ — 2-15-0; Twine 4/, Bank 4/, old Slice & Handirons 
2/6—0-10-6; All the old Printing Types Belonging to the office — 50-0-0; New 
Types Lately Imported from Philadelphia — 161-0-0." At Watson's house he 
had a "Map Lexington Battle." He also owned one half of a paper mill, with the 
house and land valued at £475, 16 s. Paper was early obtained at Christopher 
Leffingwell's mill in Norwich. The Courant was suspended for lack of it from Dec. 
11, 1775 to Jan. 15, 1776. In the summer of 1775, Watson bought a mill site at 
"Five Miles," now Manchester, and, in company with Austin Ledyard, established 
a paper-mill. Here the Courant's paper was made. This mill was burned on the 
night of Jan. 27, 1778, it was thought by an incendiary. Widows Watson and 
Ledyard petitioned the General Assembly for help in rebuilding it, and were granted 
the privilege of a lottery. In 1779, it was again in operation. Elisha Babcock, 
later a Hartford printer, was, perhaps, running it. He acquired an interest, which 
he sold in 1780 to Barzillai Hudson and Daniel Butler, it being the mill set up by 
Watson and Ledyard. A Courant advertisement in 1782 indicates that there 
were then two paper-mills in Hartford, apparently under the same management. 
It is said that one was set up at Buckland in 1780, by Richard L. Jones. Hudson 
ami Goodwill erected one at Burnside in 1789, where paper for the Courant was 
made many years. State Archives: Industry, II: 159, 160; Goodwin's Hist, of 
East Hartford, pp. 154-158; Mem. Hist, of Hartford County, II: 250-252; Hart- 
ford Land Records, 13: 300,361; 14: 191,215; Rec. State of Conn., I: 503,5,49, 
II: 197, 198. 

1 Lyon's Colonial Furniture of New England, p. 255. 



TRADE AND SHOPS 313 

The tenants of the old printing-office changed frequently. 
There Cotton Murray, a "tailor from Boston," made men's 
clothes of leather, as well as cloth, in 1770. The next year 
Edward Dodd, Jr. sold English goods there, and rum also. 
In 1776, and for several years, Deodat Williams, a gold- 
smith and jeweller, and George Burnham, in the same 
business, were tenants. The same year, Nathaniel Patten, 
a book-binder and stationer, established himself there. 
He removed, in 1777, to a shop north of the Court House, 
where he became a publisher about 1780. In this building, 
Lynde and Marble from Worcester, in 1777, opened a shop 
for the sale of drugs and medicines, and Josiah Blakeley 
had a store. He advertised, in the newspaper printed on 
the floor above, that he had gunpowder for sale. These 
shops must have been small, and some of them in the rear. 
The printing-office was one of the town's landmarks. Ad- 
vertisers referred to it in locating their shops as they did 
to the North Meeting House or the Bridge. The building 
long occupied by Peter Lux was formerly known as the 
Doolittle place, and the printing-office was just south of it. 

On the home-lot of Nathaniel Hooker there were buildings, 
when he acquired it, with a well, trees and a garden. When 
he died in 1711, he had a shop there, in which he sold dry- 
goods, and also a "shop warehouse." The widow, Mary 
Hooker, married John Austin, another early merchant. 
Her son, Nathaniel Hooker, inherited the homestead and 
the business. At his death in 1763, the property passed 
to the widow, Eunice Hooker, and the son Horace. In the 
shop, Benoni Chalker was a tenant in 1765. Here, or in 
another building on the premises, Henshaw and Hamlin, 
braziers and pewterers, were established in 1767. Among 
the tenants during the Revolution, was Josiah W. Gibbs, 
who sold knives, forks, linen, shoes, etc. He advertised, in 
1775, that he had escaped from Boston and set up a shop 
at Mrs. Hooker's, the next door north of the printing-office. 
Later, a new shop was erected and occupied by Daniel 
Hinsdale. Stephen Austin, a tailor by trade and a dry- 
goods merchant, acquired the north part of the Hooker lot 
before 1775, and kept a store there during the Revolution. 
In 1782 he sold to Colonel Jeremiah Wads worth. The 



314 THE COLOMAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

place then had upon it a brick mansion-house, stores and 
other buildings. Next north of this lot, Nicholas Brown, a 
chair or chaise and harness-maker, was established in 
1769. He advertised, in 1771, that he was building a stage- 
coach for the accommodation of passengers from Hartford 
to New Haven. He bought this place in 1773. When the 
war broke out, he advertised it for sale. He had then a 
house, shop and barn. John Thomas secured the property, 
by execution, in 1783, and two years later Nicholas Brown, 
then of Shelburn, Nova Scotia, quitclaimed it. Along its 
north side, there was a passway to the south door of the 
meeting-house, for which part of the Hooker lot had been 
taken. 

North of the First Church property, the ancient cemetery 
then extended for some distance out to the street. The 
history of this tract has been exhaustively studied by Mr. 
Albert L. Washburn, and nothing need be added to printed 
authorities. 1 Near its northeast corner, the town gave 
liberty, in 1771, for the erection of the school-house elsewhere 
described. The vote states that it was "south of the Bar- 
bers Shop in the Pofsefsion & Occupancy of James Mookler." 
This "noted and well accomplished artist" was an Irish- 
man, who came to Hartford before 1758, and that year 
married Sabra Center. His shop was on the first floor of 
a rented building, near the south line of the Lord lot, which 
extended from the burying-ground to Pearl Street. On 
December 5, 1765, his memorial for a "place" was before 
the town. Probably this was without immediate results, 
for, in 1771, when the school-house was located, he was 
granted liberty to erect an addition to his shop on the 
burying-ground "next to M r Lords Lott." He was granted 
six feet and took about twice that. This property passed, 
in 1786, to Prosper Hosmer. 2 In the old shop Mookler 

1 Washburn's Study and Plan in The Hartford Times, Oct. 4, 1899. See also 
"The Ancient Burying Ground of Hartford," by Mrs. Emily S. G. Holcombe, in 
Connecticut Quarterly, IV: 73 ff.; Hoadly's "List of Burials," with Notes by Miss 
Mary K. Talcott in Connecticut Quarter!;,', IV: 180, 264, 417; V: 118, 186, 242, 290, 
336, 382, 426, 481, 520; The Hartford Courani, Feb. 4, 1893, Feb. 6, 1895, Nov. 
21. ism). March 29, 1905, May 16 and 29, 1912; The Hartford Times,Dec.U, 1896; 
Nov. 1, 1897, Oct. 31, 1898, June 17 and Oct. 4, 1899, Nov. 5, 1902. 

- Hartford Land Records, 14: 353; 16: 354; 17: 18, 19, 151, 491; Hartford 
Town Votes. MS. Vol. II: 208, 236, 237, 317. 



TRADE AND SHOPS 315 

was located in 1768, when he warned his customers to 
"make immediate settlement or expect Trouble," as he 
was going on a voyage to Europe. He advertised his shop 
in 1769, as "within a stone's throw of the North Meeting 
House." Barber was told by Mr. George Goodwin, the 
senior editor of The Connecticut Courant, who was then in 
his eightieth year, that "he commenced his apprenticeship 
with Mr. Green, at the age of eight or nine years, in his 
office over Mooklar's barber's shop, the first printing office 
in Hartford." ! This must have been, therefore, the first 
home of that ancient newspaper. Its issues from October 
29, 1764, to March 25, 1765, inclusive, state that it was 
published "at the Heart and Crown near the North Meeting 
House," and it probably continued there until the week 
following its issue of May 6, 1765. Mr. Albert C. Bates 
has suggested that the device on the headlines of the early 
numbers was copied from its sign, as the cut displays both 
heart and crown. 2 One item in the inventory of Ebenezer 
Watson was, "Iron for Sign." Thus little is left to the 
imagination in picturing the birthplace of the Courant. 

North of Mookler's shop, on the lot of John Haynes 
Lord, there were several small buildings used for shops. 
One was rented in 1768, by Robert Currie, a cabinet-maker. 
Another was occupied later, by Ebenezer Austin, a gold- 
smith, formerly with James Tiley on King Street, and, in 
1782, at Mrs. Chenevard's, near the State House. 3 Barber 
assigns a third to William Gove, called "Old Gove," a 
shoemaker. Thomas Hilldrup was in one of these in 1775. 

During the Revolutionary period there were several shops 
on the road from "Lords Corner" to the prison, now Pearl 
Street. In 1778, John Hill, formerly with Charles Wright, 
at the next door to Widow Collyers, sold leather breeches, at 
the sign of the "Cock and Breeches," on the south side of 
the street. Ely Warner had advertised the same goods, in 
1775, at the gaol, and William Smith at his shop a few rods 
north of it. On the north corner at Main Street, was the 

1 Barber's Conn. Hist. Coll. p. 49. 2 The Hartford Courant, April 3, 1912. 

3 Austin advertised for sale in 1782 "The whole Apparatus of a Gold-Smiths and 
Jeweller's tools — confisting of large and f mall Anvils, Hammers of all sizes compleat, 
large Bellowfes, Patterns and Drafts of all kinds of work, including the whole 
Articles to carry on the Bufinefs." 



316 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

home of John Nevins, "cooper and butcher." William 
Imlay secured a lot west of this in 1778, with a shop upon 
it, which had been occupied by Captain Hugh Ledlie. 
Mr. Imlay had married Mary, the widow of Joseph Church 
and daughter of Robert Nevins. North of the Nevins 
home, was the store of James Church, where the State Bank 
now is. On the second floor of this store, "opposite the 
Court House and next door to Mr. Bull's Tavern," was the 
second home of The Connecticut Courant. It was published 
here from May 13, 1765, to December 5, 1768. Its sign 
was still "the Heart and Crown." Along Central Row there 
were also shops, some of them concealed in the rear to this 
day, as elsewhere shown. At the southeast corner of the 
square, Ebenezer Barnard dealt in horses. In the same 
locality, Bavil Webster was established in 1780, as a printer, 
being "a few rods south of the State House," or "southeast 
of the Court House." Several publications about that 
time bear his imprint. In 1783, he issued The Freeman s 
Chronicle or American Advertiser. Some prominent mer- 
chants were located on State Street, known in colonial times 
as "King Street." On the south side, Lathrop and Smith 
were established in 1763. In 1770, Smith and Coit succeeded 
them, and Dr. Solomon Smith conducted the business, 
alone, from 1778 to his death, in 1786. Dr. Smith was one 
of the prominent physicians of the town. His shop was 
that of an apothecary, or druggist and bookseller. On the 
southwest corner of State and Front streets, was the store 
of Caleb Bull, kept later by James and Hezekiah Bull. 
Captain John Keith's homestead and shop were on the 
northwest corner. He died in 1775. West of this, was 
the shop of James Tiley, where William Tiley had been. 
The former was a well-known goldsmith and jeweller for 
many years. This building is still standing. After the 
Revolution, the trade in this street increased, and other 
shops were erected. At the present west corner of Market 
Street, there was a small building occupied by John Law- 
rence, treasurer of the State from 1769 to 1789. Here he 
conducted the Continental Loan Office. His home and that 
of his son William Lawrence, a storekeeper, farther west, 
are often recalled. Beyond this, was the Edwards home- 



TRADE AND SHOPS 317 

stead. The one or more shops on the premises were favorite 
locations for business before and during the Revolution, as 
the advertisements prove. This is also true of the Collyer 
homestead west of it, where both dry-goods and wet goods 
were sold. 

In 1775, the residents on the highway from Exchange 
Corner northward, called in colonial times "Queen Street," 
had just begun to appreciate the advantages of their loca- 
tion for trade. The succeeding generation witnessed great 
changes. On the corner, George Smith, a sea captain, had 
a mansion-house, shop and warehouse, in 1762. These 
buildings were devoted to business. Here John Morgan 
kept his store, until he removed to Morgan Street. North 
of this, on the east side of the street, was Dr. Normand 
Morrison's homestead. Beyond, was the store of Captain 
Caleb Bull Jr., who sold dry-goods and provisions. The 
early location of Gardner and Jepson was next. The 
latter succeeded to the business, his sign being also the "Uni- 
corn and Mortar." He removed thence to the South- 
side, and Dr. Richard Tidmarsh located here. This was 
one of the several places where Thomas Hilldrup repaired 
watches and kept the post-office. Richard Shepard, a 
tailor, had a shop north of this, perhaps the same where 
Caleb and Ebenezer Moor sold laces and fringes in 1776. 
Timothy Phelps, whose home was next, was a cabinet- 
maker, and probably worked at his trade on the premises. 
The north part of his lot passed, in 1784, to Dr. John Endi- 
cott, but he may have been a tenant earlier. In 1783, 
William Moseley acquired a lot north of this, and in this 
neighborhood, where Colonel Samuel Talcott occupied his 
ancestral home, we find Jeremiah Piatt, Pelatiah Pierce and 
other merchants, toward the close of the Revolutionary War. 

On the west side of Queen Street, north of Bull's Tavern, 
there were in 1775 several homes of farmers, who still con- 
tinued the early uses of their lots. The first was owned by 
Captain Samuel Wadsworth. His house stood on an em- 
bankment said to have been eight feet high, near the north 
corner of Asylum Street. He had a barn and cowyard on 
the west. Joseph and William Pratt were living on the lot 
that had been in the possession of that family since the 



318 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

settlement. Here Thomas Sloan, whose earlier location 
had been on the south side of Pearl Street, had a blacksmith 
shop. Zachariah Pratt, also a farmer, was north of him. 
Beyond was the Maynard Day lot, on which Thomas Con- 
verse had earlier erected a shop, being on the west side of 
"the Broad Street." Here Converse and Stone made and 
sold breeches, at the "Sign of the Breeches," in 1770. 
Presumably it was here, also, that Thomas Converse adver- 
tised in 1771 to sell English and India goods. Cotton 
Murray was located here in 1773. Dr. Eliakim Fish bought 
one rood at the southeast corner of Samuel Day's lot in 1774, 
and erected there a house. North of this, part of the Day 
lot was sold in 1776 to Moses Morse, from whose son Moses 
it passed, in 1784, to Captain William Bull, with the house 
and buildings. Here he had a store. Perhaps this is where 
Barber locates Dr. Lemuel Hopkins's shop. The Olcott lot 
was next. Here, Joseph Olcott sold, in 1759, three acres to 
Charles Caldwell. Part of this was sold, in 1762, to the 
committee of the Episcopal Church. North of this, Charles 
Caldwell sold a lot, with a dwelling-house and shop, in 1763, 
to Samuel Mattocks of New Haven. In 1765, he advertised 
as a wig-maker. He became a captain in the Revolution- 
ary War, and his son John a governor of Vermont. About 
1780, Cotton Murray opened here a tavern "at the sign 
of the Globe," which he kept for some years. After passing 
the Talcott and Wadsworth properties, with which the 
reader already has some acquaintance, we may fittingly end 
our journey. 

At the close of Hartford's colonial history there was 
scarcely a building in the town devoted to trade that could 
be called either spacious or ornamental. The larger stores 
usually had several tenants. Most of them were small 
wooden buildings, occupied by the shop-keepers of earlier 
times. Those that survived into the nineteenth century 
were then considered insignificant. It is evident, however, 
that the location of Hartford, which rendered it compara- 
tively safe from dangers during the Revolutionary War, 
greatly augmented interest in its business life. After that 
struggle was over, it stood on the threshold of an opportunity, 
for which it had waited one hundred and fifty years. 



CHAPTER XIX 

HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 

The New England colonists of the seventeenth century 
were remarkably successful in their home-building. This 
ability had been credited to their race in those times. The 
Englishman, though cast away on a lonely island like Rob- 
inson Crusoe, soon surrounded himself with many of the 
conveniences of civilization. Whatever may have been due 
to this instinctive trait, their high conception of the family 
as essential to social welfare, their appreciation of the home 
as the source of many ennobling joys, and the loving industry 
they lavished upon it, were very important factors in the 
success of our forefathers. The truth disclosed in the records 
is that most of the original settlers of the River Plantations, 
who did not suffer from sickness or disaster, and lived to 
the natural limit of their years, secured good estates and 
comfortable homes. To a remarkable degree, they founded 
families that are worthy of honor among their widely scat- 
tered descendants, for intelligent piety, high morals, persist- 
ent industry and heroic service. 

It is proposed to study the colonial homes of Hartford. 
We have no pictures of them as they appeared in their best 
days, but so many details are given in deeds and inventories, 
that we may gather a fairly intimate acquaintance with them 
and their surroundings. We can not now obtain admittance 
by tapping on the oaken door, walk leisurely through the 
family's hall — that living-room for which every Englishman 
had an inborn affection — and inspect the furniture of their 
various apartments; but we know very well the several plans, 
after one of which all those houses were built, and through 
their inventories, we can determine the general size, num- 
ber of rooms and arrangement within. In some instances, 
a good estimate can be made of the proportions of an ances- 
tor's hall, and a list of its contents can be given to a reverent 



320 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

descendant to arrange. So we lack but little, after all, of 
visiting them in their colonial homes, to appreciate which, 
let us humbly admit, the unrest of this age, our materialistic 
ideals and modern luxuries have largely unfitted us. 

What was the ideal of home in the minds of these Puritan 
settlers? Their success should be measured by that. They 
did not come from lordly halls. The majority were of the 
middle class, of good families, but unaccustomed to large 
houses and a luxurious life. To the average Englishman 
of those times, the house was a habitation in the midst of 
a tract of land, with trees, shrubbery, flowers and gardens, 
if not also fields. Such surroundings were necessary to fill 
out for him the ideal of a home. Some of the emigrants 
are known to have sold such properties in England. That 
country was then a realm of rural life. It had few cities. 
So it was natural that, to each original settler, there should 
be distributed a tract of about two acres "for a houfe lott." 
This was soon developed and recorded as "a parcell on which 
his dwellinge houfe now standeth w th other Outhoufes, 
yards & gardens." He had owned this tract long enough, 
in "Febr: Anno: dom: 1639," to construct this home. 
When John Allyn, in 1655, bought Edward Elmer's home- 
lot, it was particularly described as having "outhoufes, 
barn, yards, orchards & gardens therein." Orchards and 
gardens are frequently added in later records. They be- 
came adjuncts of most homes. Often the place where a 
settler had thus established himself was termed his "home 
lot" — a significant and appropriate designation, to cover 
all that was included in an Englishman's ideal of home. 
If he, or his descendants, sold the place later, it was often 
termed in the deed the "homestead." These ancient homes 
in the country are so designated now. Until commercial 
life began to wander from its earlier centers, Hartford was 
a town of such homesteads. A visitor from abroad refers 
to it as having "broad ftreets, trees on the fides and hand- 
fome houfes." On the west side of the country road, 
between Pearl Street and the Little River, there were only 
four family residences when the town was a century old. 
Few streets of that length had more. They were scattered 
everywhere among the trees within the town-plot. In 



bd 



Bui 






■ 




mm^mw^" 




1 If J mWlM 












1 


1 


IpP 




E3t ^jj f^ 


^^3 


KpBi^l^i 








Tim 













HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 321 

time, these rural features began to disappear. We have now 
only a few colonial houses in Hartford. Most of the sur- 
vivors are greatly altered, and none of them conveys an 
idea of the original surroundings. 

The familiar picture of the Isaac Bliss homestead best 
illustrates the general appearance of these colonial homes. 
It stood on the west side of Trinity Street. In 1786, its 
location was given as at the west end of the street leading 
from the Great Bridge toward the Upper Mills, on the south 
side of the Little River. Here Zebulon Seymour acquired 
part of the Mygatt lot, and, in 1733, sold a small tract to 
Daniel Bull, who added another purchase on the south of 
it, in 1738. He also acquired, at the latter date, part of 
Robert King's land on the north. This was Daniel Bull's 
homestead. He probably erected his house soon after his 
first purchase. In 1762, he was living there, when, on ac- 
count of business embarrassments, he mortgaged his home 
to William Bayard, a merchant of New York. The property 
was never redeemed, and it was one of those confiscated by 
authority of the General Assembly in 1780, Colonel William 
Bayard having "joined the enemies of his country." The 
next year, John Lawrence, Treasurer of Connecticut, sold 
it to Colonel John Broom. There was then upon it a dwell- 
ing-house, barn, shop, tanhouse and other buildings. This 
owner sold the property in 1786, to Isaac Bliss, a tanner, who 
lived there many years. Through a painting of it, recently 
presented by his granddaughter, Miss Charlotte Tyler, to 
the Connecticut Historical Society, we have an illustration 
of a colonial home, dating from the first half of the eigh- 
teenth century. It remained without material alterations 
to times when some of the living remember its old-fashioned 
and comfortable appearance, with its gardens, shrubbery, 
trees and outbuildings. The Bliss elm in West Bushnell 
Park survives to mark the location. A famous spring under 
the hill supplied this homestead and its tanvats with water. 
It is said to have been connected in recent times with a 
drain emptying into the Little River. 

This early ideal of a home did not demand a large house. 
The dug-outs of the pioneers were for temporary use. They 
began at once the erection of houses. Some of them were 



322 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

of logs, built to serve until a more convenient season. When 
they had erected frame buildings, these were utilized as 
barns. Log houses continued in use during early years 
among the poorer settlers. They were of small size — 
perhaps about twenty or thirty feet long — with a chim- 
ney at one end, and a thatched roof. Probably Richard 
Lyman was living in such a house, at his death in 1641, as 
his inventory names no rooms, and he had on hand "squared 
tymber, planke & board" necessary for a framed house. 
Some of the early framed houses were small, only a story, 
or a story-and-a-half, in height. They had a chimney in 
the middle. On one side, was the hall or living-room; and, 
on the other, the parlor, sometimes called in such houses a 
"chamber," being used for that purpose. There was a low 
lodging room or "loft" above, lighted by small end windows. 
It was reached by a narrow stairway in front of the chim- 
ney, at the foot of which was the main doorway. From the 
inventories of William Spencer, Seth Grant and Robert Day, 
who died early, it seems probable that they occupied such 
houses, expecting doubtless to build greater shortly. The 
rule, however, for those who had means, was to erect two- 
story houses. These were generally accepted as models for 
many years. It is evident that Timothy Stanley, William 
Whiting, Rev. Thomas Hooker, William Pantry, John 
Talcott, Richard Lord, Rev. Samuel Stone, Edward Steb- 
bins, Nathaniel Ruscoe, Gregory Wolterton and others, who 
died before King Philip's War, had houses of this type, with 
perhaps a leanto added, or alterations made after the origi- 
nal house was erected. The leanto appeared as early as 
1643, and probably earlier. It served such a useful purpose 
in providing a kitchen, buttery, or closet, and kitchen- 
chamber, that it found general favor, especially with increas- 
ing families. Such houses had a great central chimney, with 
a fireplace on one side for the hall, and on the other for the 
parlor. With a leanto, a kitchen flue was added to the 
chimney, sometimes providing a brick oven. The front door 
opened into a small entry, called a porch, whence there was 
a stairway to the second floor, and another under it to the 
cellar. The porch occasionally projected, with a gable above, 
as in the house that Barber in his Historical Collections, 



HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 323 

has attributed to Rev. Thomas Hooker. The room above 
this porch was his study. It was often called a "porch 
chamber," or "little chamber." On the second floor, there 
were usually two chambers, named, according to their loca- 
tion, the "hall chamber" and "parlor chamber." Often 
there was a fireplace in each. The garret, also, was some- 
times furnished with a bed, and always used more or less 
for storage, especially of grain. On account of the projec- 
tion or "overhang" of the second floor, the upper story 
rooms were slightly larger. A few inventories mention 
rooms that suggest another arrangement, or an addition 
to the house. In most cases, this was occasioned by a 
division of certain large rooms with a partition, anticipating 
the four room plan of later times. In Rev. Samuel Stone's 
house, we find a study with a fireplace, but there was no 
such provision in his hall chamber. He evidently divided 
the latter room into two, using the rear one, which had access 
to the chimney, for his study. Sometimes this room was 
called the "middle chamber," being between the little hall 
chamber and the chamber above a leanto kitchen. The 
inventory of Richard Lord, who died in 1662, refers to a 
"Little Chamber over the Hall," which apparently had 
no fireplace. It also mentions a "Middle Chamber over 
the Hall," which was furnished with andirons. In some 
larger houses, the hall itself was divided. John Pantry 
had an "old parlor" and a "new parlor." The house of 
Rev. Thomas Hooker had the same rooms. Over each, in 
the pastor's house, there was a chamber in connection with 
which the chimney is mentioned. There was apparently 
no such accommodation in either his hall or hall chamber. 
As the chimney could have served only four rooms of the 
main building, we conjecture that his new parlor was the 
rear of the divided hall, as in other instances. Probably it 
had a fireplace, though none is named in his inventory made 
two years after his death, when there may have been another 
arrangement of furniture. There were no beds on the first 
floor of this house. The pastor's books were doubtless 
kept in his study over the porch; but it would be strange if 
he used that small room in the winter time, with a snug 
apartment below, like his new parlor. This arrangement 



324 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

was precisely like that in Mr. Stone's house, only the teacher 
used the second floor. 

The records furnish little information concerning the 
size of these early houses. The report sent to the Com- 
mittee for Trade, in 1680, states that their buildings were 
generally of wood, though there were some of stone and 
brick, "many of them of good strength and comelynesse" 
for a wilderness. The following added words were crossed 
out in the record: "many 40 foot long and 20 foot broad, 
and some larger: three and four stories high." These 
dimensions were not far from those of the town's larger 
houses at that date. A journal speaks of the removal of 
one in 1775, exactly that size. Messrs Isham and Brown, 
who have made a thorough and interesting study of Early 
Connecticut Houses, have given us the measurements of some 
that have remained to recent years. The dimensions of 
the Robert Webster or Dorus Barnard house, erected in 
1660 and standing until 1899, on Retreat Avenue, were 
about 40 by 20 feet. The Captain John Barnard house, 
erected near it about 1680 and surviving to recent years, 
was 40 feet 4 inches long and 32 feet 7 inches wide, includ- 
ing the leanto. These represent the larger mansions. The 
majority were smaller. We should expect this of one story 
houses, but some of two stories, in which large families 
dwelt, were of small proportions. The leanto, if it extended 
the entire length in the rear, and was from ten to fourteen 
feet wide, added considerably to the size, both in capacity 
and appearance. In houses that had only a hall and a par- 
lor on the first floor, the rooms were sufficiently spacious 
to display no little dignity, notwithstanding their low 
ceilings. 

It is sufficient for our purpose to deal in a general way with 
the materials of these early houses, and the manner in which 
they were constructed. The volume above cited is an 
admirable text-book for further study. The red sandstone 
quarried along the Little River was a desirable material 
especially for underpinning and their large chimneys. The 
ease with which it could be obtained, and its convenient 
flat surfaces, rather than a scarcity of brick, accounts for its 
general use in early Hart lord. From the beginning, bricks 



HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 325 

were put into chimneys. In 1639, John Gennings was 
allowed for sweeping "6 d for bricke & 3 d for Clay." Their 
framing timbers were hewn, often in the woods and hauled 
by oxen to their house-lots. Plank and boards were prepared 
at the saw-pit. William Goodwin established the first 
sawmill on the Hockanum River. He early acquired land 
there, but, at what date his mill was in operation, is un- 
certain. In 1654, he was granted liberty by the General 
Court to take timber from waste land, "to keep his sawe 
mill in imployment." The property passed to his son-in- 
law, John Crow; but it is doubtful if this mill was of large 
assistance in early building operations. John Allyn had a 
saw-mill on the same river, in 1672. The framing of these 
colonial houses has always won admiration. It demanded 
great labor, and was well done. For the average settler, 
it was the most difficult part of house-building. Surviving 
examples represent, however, the better class of dwellings. 
All early houses were not so well built, and, in comparison, 
did not stand long, as the records prove. The house frame 
being set up, most of the work on the walls could have been 
done by the settler himself. Between the studs or posts, 
they filled in with bricks plastered on the sides, or, when 
the walls were boarded, with clay. In New London, they 
sometimes used seaweed, and other materials were doubtless 
utilized in Hartford. Wide horizontal weather-boards, set 
close with bevelled edges, are thought to have been the rule 
in the outside finish of early framed houses. Clapboards 
were used on better buildings, nailed directly to the studs. 
Their roofs were steep and shingled. The floors were of wide 
and thick oak, or hard pine boards. Doors were usually 
plain. The windows were small. At first, wooden shutters 
were generally used, probably protecting an inside window 
of cloth or oiled paper, which admitted the light. For the 
better houses, window-frames were provided, leaded with 
small diamond-shaped panes of glass. These frames were 
at first brought from England. Early houses must have 
varied greatly in their inside finish. The poor had always 
plenty of our red clay, mixed with a wiry meadow grass. 
This was skillfully used in those times, and gave an interior 
the appearance of a plastered house. Uncovered beams and 



326 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

studs — into which they drove wooden pegs on which to 
hang their arms, hats or garments — were a relief to the 
interior. Houses of the wealthier inhabitants, especially 
their halls and parlors, were sometimes lined with unpainted 
wainscoting. Such a hall might have been very attractive, 
with walls to which the escaping smoke of a blazing fire 
had given the hues of age, and furnishings of antique pattern, 
which many of them contained. 

It is well known that the prevailing plan of colonial houses 
changed with the advance of years. The view that the land 
and probate records reveal connects these changes very 
closely with the internal prosperity and social conditions of 
New England during certain periods. As the conquest of 
the Pequots in 1637 awakened new life in the Colony, so 
did their later wars. Large and costly houses built before 
King Philip's War were few, and were owned by the 
wealthier families. The leanto was an addition. One who 
needed more room sometimes erected an extension to his 
house. After that war there was a revival of interest in 
house-building. Many early houses disappeared. Most of 
the original settlers, who had been content with pioneer 
conditions, had died. Their children had entered into the 
rewards of economy and thrift. The houses of the new era 
were much the same in interior arrangement, but they were 
generally larger, and the division of rooms was more com- 
mon. In the rear we have the long, sloping roof covering 
the leanto, which had become an integral part of the house. 
The middle of the eighteenth century witnessed another 
revival of building interest. Homestead lots within the 
town were divided up. On outlying farms, new and better 
houses were built. The increase of wealth and trade also 
exerted an influence. Commercial intercourse between the 
river towns and other colonies introduced new fashions. 
The gambrel-roof house then found favor. It had a central 
hall-way, with rooms on each side and end chimneys. An 
ell for a kitchen was often added. This plan continued in 
vogue for years after the Revolutionary War, and until 
the introduction of those classic features that have been 
attributed incorrectly to colonial times. Throughout these 
changes, their houses preserved, as a rule, that plain and 



HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 327 

unpainted exterior, which was in harmony with their Puri- 
tan taste and fashion. 

The inventories of colonial times show that housekeepers 
differed in the use they made of similar rooms and hence 
in their furnishings. In small houses without a leanto, the 
hall was their kitchen and dining-room. Richard Seymour 
had such a house, the "out room" being used as a kitchen 
and dining-room and the "inner room" as a chamber. The 
house of John Maynard, afterwards owned by the Day 
family, had two stories. At the former's death in 1657, 
the kitchen and hall occupied the first floor. Above each, 
there was a chamber. In the hall he had "one long Table, 
one short table, 6 Joynd stooles, Two cubberds w th Iroware 
and oth r implements w th one Mufket and sword, 3 books." 
Additions made for cooking purposes altered the interior 
of their halls. The parlor was usually provided with a bed, 
presumably the best one, as it was assigned to guests; but 
the mention of other articles indicates that this room was 
put to general uses. Their most valuable furniture is often 
found in it, with their best clothes, linen, dishes and personal 
treasures. The contents of second floor chambers was 
limited, and much the same in all houses. In Rev. Samuel 
Stone's parlor chamber the furnishings were "a liuery Cub- 
board, Andirons, Bedsted, 2 Chests, cushions, Curtaines 
& Valions, Boulsters and Pillowes, Brushes, blancketts, 
Goods, Broadcloth searge, earthen ware, Two sadles, Nap- 
kins, Table Cloath, sheets, pillow Beers, Towels, glasses, a 
wheel & reale, and a press." The chamber over Rev. 
Thomas Hooker's old parlor contained "a featherbed and 
boulster, 2 pillowes, a strawbed, 2 blankitts, a rugg, and 
couerlitt, darnix hangings in 7 peeces, window curtaines, 
curtaines and valence to the bed, a bedstead, 2 chaires, and 
3 stooles, andirons &c in the chimny, & a courte cubberd, 
curtaines and valence to the same bed of green say, and a 
rugg of the same, with window curtaines." Trundle-beds 
were common in such apartments, and greatly needed where 
there were large families of children. Such beds continued 
in New England homes to recent times. 

The furnishings of these houses, at least in early years, 
were very plain and not so costly as some have thought. 



328 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

From England they brought chests filled with sheets, 
pillow-biers, blankets, rugs, table-cloths, napkins, towels, 
curtains, cushions and the like. Most every family had one 
or more chests. Wealthier settlers unquestionably brought 
some furniture. All of them came provided with certain 
kitchen utensils, kettles, pewter dishes and implements 
necessary in their simple culinary service. It is evident, 
however, that some of their early furniture was of home 
manufacture. The inventory value of such articles varies 
greatly, in comparing the poor with the rich. We know, 
also, that there were skilled cabinet-makers among them, 
who could never have made a living on their lands. It was 
not long before these and other artisans supplied some of 
their needs. Most of their stools and forms were home- 
made. These were commonly their seats, according to the 
custom in England. In the inventories of seventy-five 
householders from 1641 to 1659, Dr. Irving W. Lyon found 
only one hundred and fifty chairs. Some poorer families 
had none. Such rare specimens as he shows in his volume 
on the Colonial Furniture of New England, were the posses- 
sions of the wealthy. The average family may have had a 
few treasures brought from an ancestral home; but, for the 
most part, the settlers of the first generation were content 
with the simple furniture that could be readily secured, or 
was made in their cabinet shops. Nor is any marked in- 
crease of luxury in their interior furnishings apparent 
throughout most of the colonial period. The Haynes 
family will suffice for illustration. Governor John Haynes 
died in 1653. His home-lot was on the northwest corner 
of Arch and Front streets. At his death, he had a spacious 
"Mansion House," "with Outhouses, Barns, Stables, Or- 
chards & Gardens." He had expended, of his own fortune, 
several thousand pounds in establishing the Colony, and 
his character and public services deserve a lasting memorial. 
Of the interior of his house, the hall is the best index. It 
was probably a room the size of a small double parlor. 
Often it must have been put to public uses. The furnish- 
ings were, "5 leather Chaires, 4 flagg bottome Chaires, one 
table. 3 Joined stooles, one tinn hanging Candelftick, 7 
Cufhins, fire lock mufkett, 1 Carbine, 1 match-lock mufkett. 



HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 329 

one rapier, 1 pare Cobirons, 1 Iron Back, 1 gilded looking 
glafe, 1 greate bible, 1 fmothing Iron." It has been thought 
that Governor John Winthrop lived in this house, after he 
was chosen to office in 1657. He was then invited to "come 
& Hue in Hartford, w th his family, while hee gou r nes," 
and the General Court then offered him the yearly use of 
the "housing & lands in Hartford belonging to Mr. John 
Haynes." At his death in 1676, he had considerable house- 
hold property in Hartford, valued at £73 1 s. 4 d. Perhaps 
Rev. Joseph Haynes lived in the same house. When he 
died in 1679, the hall contained, "one Cupboard w th Cup- 
board cloths w th some earthen ware standing upon it, two 
tables & chairs, 3 chishens, 2 Andirons, 1 brafs candlestick." 
In due time this home was occupied by his son, Judge John 
Haynes, who died in 1713. At that time the hall's furnish- 
ings were, "a great Table, Carpet, Lefser Table, 9 Leath r 
Chairs, Seven Lefser Chairs, a Looking glafs, hour glafs, 
pa. Iron doggs, fire slice, pa. Tongs, gridiron, Trevitt, Lamp, 
a Toafting Iron, Earthen Ware, drinking glafses and Small 
Vialls, Knives and forks, chaffing difh." 

The arms of those times were usually kept in the hall. 
Every home was provided with some weapon of defense, and 
certain warlike individuals seemed to have a small armory. 
The inventory of Richard Lord, 1711, exhibits an exceptional 
collection of arms — "A short new fuzee, Do. longer, a 
Carbine, a small peice, long peice, round barrel, 1 Do, Old 
Carbine, a long gun, Cafe piftolls and holsters, hoosing and 
caps, A plate belt Sword, Another Sword, two old blads, 
An old Sholder belt, Cane w th plate head, do ivory, An 
hunting whip, a musquet." Sometimes a saddle and riding 
bridle were apparently kept in the hall, but they are found 
in the parlor, a chamber, or a closet. In the hall we would 
naturally look for the family clock; but time-pieces of any 
kind were scarce. George Wyllys, at his death in 1644, 
bequeathed a watch to his son Samuel. The inventory of 
Captain Richard Lord, 1662, mentions a watch, which, 
perhaps, descended to his grandson, Richard Lord, and is 
valued at his death, in 1711, at £12. In the estate of Elisha 
Lord, 1725, a watch is noted. Rev. Samuel Stone, 1663, 
Lt. Col. John Talcott, 1688, Judge Nathaniel Stanley, 1712, 



330 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

and others, had hour-glasses. The inventory of Rev. 
Thomas Hooker, 1649, is the earliest to mention a clock. 
It was kept in his new parlor, the entire furnishings of which 
were valued at only £5. It was probably a small brass 
clock, hung high on the wall, with its weight exposed. A 
clock in the estate of Governor Thomas Welles, 1659, was 
valued at £l. Major James Richards, 1680, had one valued 
at £3. About the middle of the eighteenth century, a 
"clock reall" is common. Among the possessions of Rev. 
Nathaniel Hooker of Hartford, who died in 1770, there was 
"A Clock and Cafe" valued at £5. This was doubtless 
a tall, cased eight-day clock, of the pattern introduced 
into New England late in the seventeenth century, but 
rarely found in towns like Hartford until after the Revolu- 
tionary War. 1 Isaac Sheldon, who died in 1786, had a 
"Mohogony Clock" valued at £12. It is interesting to see 
in some early inventories pieces of furniture that were 
highly valued, such as livery-cupboards, inlaid tables and 
the like. To many an inhabitant, these were doubtless 
the cherished reminders of an English home. There were 
many, however, especially young men without families, the 
circumstances of whose departure from England did not 
permit them to bring such articles. Occasionally, some one 
like Major Richards had a piece of armor. Many, doubt- 
less, had swords, which they had carried in England. 
Nathaniel Hooker's inventory in 1763, mentions a "Coat 
of Arms of the family." In 1796, John Haynes Lord's 
estate included a "cote of arms." Captain Joseph Talcott, 
in 1799, had a " Family Seal." Others had the like, and they 
were used in sealing documents. 

The ancient houses of Hartford that have survived to 
recent times have become generally known. Those that 
still remain are interesting to some, as representatives of 
the architecture of a by-gone age. To others, their great 
charm is in the fact that they are memorials of colonial life. 
They have been stripped of those verdant beauties with 
which they were once surrounded, and mutilated by those 
who have adapted them to modern service; but they were 
once the homes of honored generations that have passed 

1 The Hartford Courant, June 26, 1906. 




The Amos Bull and Joseph Whiting Houses 



HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 331 

away and left their habitations desolate. If we can, in some 
measure, restore their environment by the use of the records, 
the reader's imagination may be assisted in picturing some 
of Hartford's colonial homes. 

The youngest son of Major William Whiting, the mer- 
chant, was Joseph, born in 1645. He married, first, Mary, 
the daughter of Hon. John and Amy (Wyllys) Pynchon of 
Springfield, and, second, Anna, the daughter of Colonel 
John Allyn. He settled in Westfield, but returned in 1676 
to Hartford. His father's old home was on Governor Street. 
Rev. John Whiting, his brother, was then pastor of the 
Second Church, and lived on the former home-lot of Nathan- 
iel Ward, on Sheldon Street. Joseph Whiting purchased, 
in 1682, from Zachary Sandford, one-half acre on the corner 
of Main and Charter Oak streets, with a tenement stand- 
ing thereon. It was, perhaps, the same house, which the 
grantor had bought from Francis Barnard in 1667, and can 
not be older, for the house of the original owner, Andrew 
Bacon, stood on the north end of his lot. In this house, 
or in another which he built, Joseph Whiting lived during 
his remaining years, being the Treasurer of Connecticut from 
1678 to his death, in 1717. The house has been fully de- 
scribed by Mr. Isham in Early Connecticut Houses. It stood 
a short distance from the corner, with its gable toward the 
street and was demolished in May 1914. Most of the early 
houses of Hartford faced either east or south. There were 
trees about it and an orchard on the east, beyond which was 
the South-side pound. In Joseph Whiting's day, there were 
not more than three or four houses and the Second Church 
meeting-house between this corner and the Little River. 
The surroundings were those of a country village. Joseph 
Whiting left an estate of £2546 5 s. 5 d. "The Mantion 
Houfe and homestead" were valued at £155. After his 
widow's death in 1735, the estate was divided, the surviving 
children being Susanna, the wife of Thomas Warren, Anna, 
the wife of Nathaniel Stanley, Margaret, the wife of Rev. 
Jonathan Marsh of Windsor, and Colonel John Whiting, 
who married Jerusha, daughter of Richard Lord. The son 
succeeded his father as Treasurer of Connecticut, and died 
in 1766. In 1749, Nathaniel Stanley and his wife sold this 



332 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

property to Captain Aaron Bull, and it was for many years 
the hitter's homestead. It comprised when purchased three- 
fourths of an acre, with a dwelling-house and other buildings. 
A passway on the north separated it from the Freeman 
Gross homestead. Captain Bull looked out of his west 
windows, upon the building of the second meeting-house of 
the South Church. The Whiting, Stanley, Bull and Warren 
families were its staunch supporters. In this house the 
Ecclesiastical Council convened in 1784, and marched in 
procession across the street, to install Rev. Benjamin Board- 
man. In 1788 the owner sold the north part of his home- 
stead to Amos Bull, who erected upon it a brick house, now 
known as the Spencer house. Captain Bull died in 1793, 
aged 82 years. The rooms mentioned identify the old house. 
The property was divided among the widow and her daugh- 
ters. A grandson, Aaron Bull, inherited eventually the 
house and a portion of the lot, which he sold in 1809 to 
George Burr. After a few years, other buildings began to 
crowd in around it, and this homestead disappeared into 
modern life. To how much of Hartford's South-side his- 
tory this ancient house has been a witness, will never be 
known. Its history covers most of the life of the church to 
which it has always been a neighbor. Many public men 
must have crossed its threshold. Prominent Hartford 
families have been its tenants. All are gone. Still, if the 
builder of it could return, he would recognize in this struc- 
ture the work of his hand. So, many a man has builded 
better than he knew. 

On the east side of Governor Street, near the corner of 
Sheldon, there stood until recently an ancient mansion- 
house, with which none in Hartford could compare as a 
memorial of early days. It was known in the last century 
as the Sheldon W T oodbridge house. Mr. Isham has dis- 
cussed its architectural features. This interest may be 
enhanced by the family history that gathers about this 
house or its predecessor. The land upon which it stood was 
originally a part of John White's home-lot. Governor 
Hopkins acquired three lots east of it before 1G39, and also 
exchanged a strip of his own land for the north portion of 
White's lot. The original Hopkins house stood some dis- 



HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 333 

tance east of this, probably on his own allotment. In 1639, 
he had outhouses, yards and gardens adjoining it. The 
Hopkins trustees sold this property in 1665, to Mr. James 
Richards, a son of Thomas of Plymouth and a brother of 
Major John Richards of Boston. The new owner had lived 
in Hartford several years, and had married Sarah, the daugh- 
ter of William Gibbons. It is said that "in calling he was 
a merchant, and traded extensively in real estate." This 
family lived in the Hopkins mansion. Four daughters 
and a son Thomas, were the children of this circle. 1 In the 
autumn of 1675, Major James Richards's warehouse and 
barn were destroyed by fire. The Hopkins mansion must 
then have been nearly forty years old. The owner, appar- 
ently, considered the loss of his buildings an opportune 
time for a change of location. He had, in 1665, secured 
land from the town, "at y e North end of his home lott w * 1 
was M r Edward Hopkins," and had probably then erected 
the buildings that had been burned. In 1676, he petitioned 
for "a smale parcell of land on the North of his Home lott 
between it & the riuer to set a Barn." 2 His request was 
granted. The land was laid out February 5, 1676-7. 3 It 
was west of his former grant and along the river. This 
would have been northerly from the corner tract secured 
from Elder John White, who then lived south of it. Major 
Richards was probably then establishing his new home 
in this location. In 1679, he recorded this property as a 
tract of nearly twenty acres. It was that "on which his 
now dwelling houfe standes" — an expression that meant, 
in some instances at least, the owner's present dwelling 
house. This house faced the main highway on the west; 
but it would doubtless have had, like others, a side exposure 
toward the south, with the garden usually found near such 
homesteads. On June 11, 1680, Major Richards died — a 
man highly respected, who had served as a magistrate six- 
teen years. His gravestone in the ancient burying-ground 

1 Sarah Richards married Captain Benjamin Davis; Mary married Mr. Benja- 
min Alford; Jerusha married Rev. and Governor Gurdon Saltonstall; and Eliza- 
beth married Rev. John Davie of Groton, later Sir John Davie of Creedy, Co. 
Devon, England. 

2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 149, 176. 3 Original Distribution, p. 543. 



334 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

bears the coat of arms of his family. The inventory of his 
estate amounted to £7931 Is., which he had acquired by 
inheritance, marriage and trade. It was the largest estate 
that had been probated in Hartford. About one-third of it 
consisted of lands in England. He had also some estate 
and housing in Boston. His real estate in Hartford was 
valued at £1753. In his house there were the following 
rooms: parlor, hall, space-room, kitchen, green chamber, 
parlor chamber, porch chamber, space chamber, kitchen 
chamber, little parlor chamber and garret chamber. 1 Widow 
Sarah Richards married, as his second or third wife, Hum- 
phrey Davie Esq. of Boston, the father of her son-in-law. 
He died at Hartford in 1688, and his inventory mentions 
the same rooms above noted. Mrs. Sarah Davie married, 
in 1706, Colonel Jonathan Tyng of Dunstable. Meanwhile 
the son, Thomas Richards, born in 1670, had become of age 
and married Joanna Dodd. In 1694, by the death of his 
uncle Major John Richards, he inherited property in Boston. 
Thus, in 1704, he leased to Thomas Seymour, for one-half 
the revenue, "all that Cappitall Mefuage or Tenement 
wherein the said Thomas Richards now dwelleth," the same 
to run seven years from April 1, 1705. 2 If the above expres- 
sion may be taken as equivalent to "capital manse," the 
dignity of a manor-house was claimed for this residence. 3 
Mr. Thomas Richards died at Boston in 1714. His widow 
Joanna Richards, and her daughters Joanna and Mary, were 

1 The obsolete terms "space-room" and "space-chamber" determine the plan 
of this house. The passage or " middle pace" dividing a house was anciently called 
a "space way." The space-room was at the end of this passage and the space- 
chamber was above that room. The front room on the second floor was the porch - 
chamber. We have met with no mention of space rooms in other contemporary 
Hartford inventories. The contents of this space-room in 1680 were as follows: 
"Armour & small artillery, musket, pike, pistolls, small guns with carriages, ammu- 
nition, 4 leather & 1 flag chair, small table, two chests, i saddles, sword, lanthorn, 
curry comb & spinning wheel." 

2 "Seymour Papers: Madam Richards's Land," in Boardman Collection, State 
Library, Nos. 138-146. 

3 The term messuage (messuagium) was applied to a dwelling-house, when taken 
in connection with and including all adjacent outbuildings and the lands belonging 
thereto. The owners of several often applied the term "capital messuage" to the 
one he occupied. A manor-house was a capital messuage, and the terms were 
sometimes used interchangeably. Thomas Richards had other properties that 
were rented. 



HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 335 

the heirs. 1 Madam Richards was not an agreeable person 
with whom to transact business. Nor did she appreciate 
the faithful stewardship of her tenant, Captain Thomas 
Seymour. He finally induced Jonathan and Isaac Sheldon 
of Northampton to join with him in purchasing the estate. 
It was conveyed to them in 1715. Ten years later, the 
daughters, Joanna Brooker and Mary Evitt of Boston, 
released to Jonathan and Isaac Sheldon their interest in 
"One Certain Mansion or Dwelling house," with the home- 
lot of one acre and several other tracts of land. The con- 
sideration was £1108. A statement of Captain Seymour 
concerning this transaction implies that the house and 
buildings were then out of repair. Mr. Isaac Sheldon, 
having acquired the whole of this homestead, made it his 
residence until his death in 1749. He was a man of some 
means and standing. He was chosen a deacon in the Second 
Church, where his children were baptized. 2 The inventory 
of his estate is missing. His will mentions his house, but 
does not assist in identifying it. The homestead descended 
to his son Isaac, who died in 1786. In his inventory rooms 
are named that correspond reasonably well with those in 
Major Richards's house. Again the "space-chamber" is 
mentioned. 3 His widow had a right in the "space ways and 
stairs," as also in the garden south of the house. Thus 
this homestead passed to the heirs of his daughter Elizabeth, 

1 Mrs. Joanna Richards subsequently married Dr. John Cutler of Boston. The 
younger daughter, Mary, married Benjamin Evitt, and died intestate in 1743. 
Joanna Richards, in 1720, married William Brooker, he having executed an ante- 
nupital agreement to give her the control of her property. In 1759, Joanna 
Brooker, being then a widow, made a will in which, after sundry legacies to her 
kindred, she remembered the "Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in 
Foreign Parts," King's Chapel in Boston, and gave the residuum of her estate to 
the Selectmen of Boston for the relief of poor widows and sick people. She died 
the same year. Her estate amounted to something over £1600. The real estate 
in Connecticut was bequeathed to the children or legal representatives of Edward 
Dodd, Gent, of Hartford. 

2 Dea. Isaac Sheldon, b. Aug. 26, 1686, was the son of Isaac and Sarah (Warren) 
Sheldon. He is said to have married, 1st Elizabeth Pratt of Hartford, who d. in 
Sept. 1745, ae., 53. He married, 2nd, June 26, 1746, Theoda, eldest daughter of 
Jonathan and Martha (Williams) Hunt. Dea. Sheldon's children, all by his first 
wife, were, Elizabeth (Marsh), Sarah (Woodbridge), Isaac, Daniel, Joseph, Rebecca 
and Hannah. 

3 The contents were: "1 Bedsted & Bed, 1 p r Pistols & Holster, 1 p r Saddle 
Bags, 1 do Portmanteau, 1 Gun, 1 New Saddle, 1 Womans Saddle." 



336 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

the wife of Joseph Woodbridge, and mother of Mr. Sheldon 
Woodbridge. It seems probable, therefore, when judgment 
is based upon the historical evidence, that the ancient house 
made famous by its peculiar construction, was that erected 
by Major James Richards, with subsequent alterations and 
improvements. The price paid for the property by Mr. 
Sheldon indicates that there was exceptional value in the 
buildings upon it. Major Richards was very wealthy, with 
a large acquaintance throughout New England, an estate 
in County Norfolk, England, and decided aristocratic in- 
clinations. He made several voyages to the mother country 
and was often in Boston with his family. It would have 
been natural for him to erect a manor-house. Upon a close 
acquaintance with Deacon Sheldon, he does not seem to 
have been a man for such a venture. He valued lands 
above houses, and acquired, by frugality and enterprise, 
large tracts of the former. Such a man would hardly have 
torn down one of the most pretentious mansions of its day, 
to erect in the same place a counterpart of it. He doubtless 
found it in need of repairs, which he and his son made with- 
out unnecessary expense. In the recent destruction of this 
ancient house, the original frame was seen to be very old, 
as were the chimneys at either end. The north wall stood 
as originally built. Its bricks were of early date and laid 
in clay. On the other hand, the wall at the south end of 
the house had been rebuilt, the bricks being laid in lime 
mortar. At this time, tie-anchors were used. It is conjec- 
tured that this rebuilding was done about 1721, which is the 
date upon an old hand-made brick in the author's possession. 
Both walls had been carefully pointed with mortar, appar- 
ently several times. The stones of the cellar wall were 
mostly of red sandstone, from the quarry at the lower falls 
of the Little River, only a few rods distant. The panelling 
was of exceptional quality, but comparatively modern, as 
were the dormer windows of the third story. The door in 
the south wall, afterwards closed up, furnished an exit from 
the hall into the garden on the south side of the house, 
and the southern windows admitted the winter sunshine. 
About the house there were once buttonwood trees. On the 
east, at no great distance, was an orchard, planted originally 



HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 337 

by Governor Edward Hopkins. There was a well, also, 
near the house. As the town votes indicate, the barns and 
outbuildings were on the north, where the cattle had access 
to the clear water of the riveret. Restore all these features 
of the surroundings in the imagination; adorn the picture 
with shrubs, vines and flowers, from an old English garden — 
then you have, as nearly as may be, a historical representa- 
tion of an ancient mansion of Hartford, which the records 
encourage us to term a "manor-house" — a homestead 
with an ancestral interest for many of the Seymour and 
Sheldon families. 

There are still standing within the limits of the colonial 
town, a number of houses that were erected about the middle 
of the eighteenth century. Some that were older, have 
been destroyed during the last thirty years, though pictures 
of them have been preserved in the "Taylor Collection." l 
The fact is, however, that any catalogue is quite incomplete, 
because we look merely for mansions. It should include 
those smaller buildings, or parts of them, that are hidden 
away behind modern structures. Some of these are of brick, 
and were once dwelling-houses. The old-time custom of 
moving houses to adapt them for further use, has also taken 
some out of the environment that gave them a charm. If 
we deal merely with the house, our field of interest is limited. 
In the study of ancient homesteads, the records contribute 
materially, both to the scope of investigation and the relia- 
bility of the results. 

Such a story may be told of the Captain Jonah Gross 
homestead, included within the early boundaries of the 
meeting-house yard, and now in the midst of Hartford's 
business life. The southern bound of that yard was Clement 
Chaplin's house-lot, as seen in the Plan of Hartford in 1640. 
At an early date, the town granted, on the south side of this 
yard, two parcels of land. That on the west contained two 
roods, and was owned at our earliest record by William 

1 This collection of photographs of old Hartford houses was made, in anticipa- 
tion of their destruction, by the late Mr. Samuel Taylor, a resident of this city 
nearly all his life, and it is now in the possession of the Misses Taylor, 30 Charter 
Oak Place, Hartford. 



338 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Hubbard. 1 East of this, was a rood owned by Thomas 
Hubbard, who sold to John Morris. The latter conveyed 
it, in 1665, to John Mitchell, with "a mefuag or Teniment 
Standing thereon." At that time, the grantee appears to 
have had land on the east, which was increased in 1667, by 
the town's grant of the "peice of Ground that hee hath now 
fenced in for his hay yard." In 1672, he received a further 
grant of land against his house, and he moved out to a line 
with his neighbor. 2 John Mitchell was a barber by trade. 
He had the first shop that we know of in that locality. 3 
He also had the honor of impounding any hogs that were 
found in the highway or commons, "not sufficiently ringed." 
In 1683, he died. His inventory mentions "the New houi'e" 
in which he had lived. He left some estate to his widow, a 
son and five daughters. The son, John Mitchell, occupied 
the homestead for a dozen years. He was the town's brander 
of horses and kept the record book. In 1694, he made a 
voyage to Barbadoes, and died there the following year. 
His widow Elizabeth Mitchell continued in the homestead. 
Her daughter Sarah, a spinster, sold this property in 1705, to 
John Butler, a shoemaker, being about two roods with a 
dwelling-house. On August 10, 1708, John Butler conveyed 
the same to Jonah Gross. He was the son of Simon Gross 
of Hingham, Mass., and was born there April 2, 1683. 4 
His father was a "boatman," and the son also followed the 
sea. This purchase of the Mitchell homestead is our earliest 
acquaintance with Captain Gross in Hartford. He was then 
master of the sloop "Diamond alias Tryal." In 1709, a 
libel was filed against him and the sloop was seized. 5 Three 
years later, he was transporting provisions to Boston in his 
vessel. For the Colony, he carried "3 bbls porke, 86 bushels 
Indian Corn, 26 bushels wheat & 3 bushels of Rye." In 

1 Original Distribution, pp. 180, 511; Hartford Land Records, 2: 221; 3: 187; 
4: 216. 

2 Original Distribution, pp. 180, 511, 374; Hartford Town Votes, I: 153, 167. 

3 His inventory has the folowling items: " In the fhop one Looking glass — 0-6- 
0"; " By Rafors, Combs, fiffers, a Bafon, a hair brufh & Bottle — 0-16-0." The 
"Houfe, barn & home lot" were valued at £35. He also kept three cows, a horse 
and two swine. 

4 MS. Gross Genealogy, by Charles E. Gross, Esq. 
6 Conn. Col. Bee., V: 149. 



HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 339 

the autumn of 1712, he kept his sloop in waiting for a week, 
to fulfill an engagement with Cornelius Peck for a voyage to 
South Carolina, out of which a lawsuit arose. It was 
probably to raise funds for some voyage that he transferred 
his homestead, in 1715, to Elizabeth Wadsworth, a "mantee 
maker," who returned it two years later. He married March 
13, 1717-18, Susannah, daughter of Samuel Howard, by 
whom he had children Samuel, Susannah, Lucretia, Rebecca 
and Lorenzo. These were all baptized in the First Church, 
where he had owned the covenant in 1720. The town gave 
him liberty, in 1722, to build a vessel where the selectmen 
should appoint. Thereafter for twenty years, he was one 
of Hartford's most prominent sea captains, engaged largely 
in the coast trade. He had an adventurous voyage in 1741. 
Having mortgaged his homestead to John Austin, probably 
to secure the means, he sailed for some unknown port. The 
sequel is best told by his pastor, Rev. Daniel Wadsworth. 
July 14, 1742 — "This day Jonah Gross came Home, he 
was taken by y e Spaniards May 30, 1741 and carried to 
Porto Valla from there to Leguvia, from thence over Land to 
Crokus and kept in prison there till sometime in april Last 
and then released. May god give him a thankful heart for 
his deliverance." July 15. "This day . . . rejoyced at 
the return of one of my people from Captivity." * The 
debt of £250 to John Austin was paid, and the homestead 
released. In 1745, his sloop the Rebeckah was doubtless 
one of the transports engaged by the Colony for the Cape 
Breton expedition. It was his last voyage. Ere he sailed, 
he had, in his will, committed his "body to the grave either 
in the land or sea," but his resting place is unknown. Proba- 
bly he died at Cape Breton of the sickness that carried off 
more than one-quarter of the troops. 

We attribute to Captain Gross the erection of a brick 
house near the west end of his lot, soon after the above 
marriage. This house, afterwards known as his "mansion," 
is still standing, as the records prove, on the corner northeast 
of the entrance to Bond's restaurant, in the rear of Central 
Row. It is about nineteen feet square and two and one-half 
stories high. The roof has the steep pitch then common. 

1 Wadswortk's Diary, p. 87. 



340 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Windows that were originally small have been enlarged. 
The door that entered it through a leanto kitchen on the 
west has long since been closed. A well was near at hand, 
with outbuildings and a mulberry tree. On the east the 
house looked out upon the garden. After the death of Cap- 
tain Jonah Gross, this homestead experienced various for- 
tunes. The widow conveyed it to her son Samuel Gross, a 
mariner, reserving the use of certain rooms. 1 He sold forty- 
five feet on the east end in 1750, to his brother-in-law, Dr. 
Roderick Morrison. 2 The land was increased by a grant 
from the town. 3 In 1754, Captain Samuel Gross died, 
intestate and without issue. In his inventory, this house 
and land were valued at £2400, in the currency of that 
date. 4 One-third was set off to the widow, Amy Gross. 
She sold it to her mother-in-law, Susannah Gross, who died 
in this homestead in 1762. The residue was divided among 
the decedent's three sisters, Susannah Morrison, Lucretia 
the wife of Daniel Sheldon, Rebecca the wife of Abijah 
Clark, and the younger brother, Lorenzo Gross. In 1765 
the latter died in the homestead, unmarried. It was this 
divided interest in the property, which continued until 1824, 
that prevented the destruction of the old house. 5 The 
brick addition on the north, and probably that next on 
the east, were improvements made by William Gove who 
acquired the Sheldon interest in 1781, and conducted a 
store there. 

The early house of Susannah Gross Morrison is also stand- 
ing, though in another location. Its story is a fitting con- 
clusion to a chapter that might be indefinitely extended. 
Roderick Morrison was a brother of Normand Morrison of 
Hartford. Both were well-known physicians in their day. 
On January 16, 1744-5, Dr. Roderick Morrison married 
Susannah, the daughter of Captain Jonah Gross. They had 
five children of whom Roderick, alone, survived the perils of 
infancy. Having acquired, in 1750, the east end of the Gross 

1 Hartford Land Records, 7: 457. 
* Ibid., 8: 302. 3 Ibid., 8: 7. 

4 This inventory has the interesting and surprising item : "one fountain Pen 2s ." 
'- Hartford Land Records, 10: 318; 12: 426, 510; 13: 19, 32, 68, 417, 467; 15: 
344; 16: 319; 17: 458; 20: 102; 42: 448,449,451; 43: 145. 




House of Captain Jonah Gross 




House of Dr. Roderick Morrison, 1750 



HOMES OF COLONIAL TIMES 341 

homestead, now the corner of Central Row and Prospect 
Street, Dr. Morrison tore down certain buildings thereon 
and erected a large gambrel-roof house. Here he resided, 
conducting his medical practice and the sale of drugs. His 
remaining years were few. On January 14, 1755, his inter- 
ment occurred in the old burying-ground. His widow 
became, several years later, the third wife of Lieutenant 
Joseph Phelps of Hebron, who died June 16, 1764. She 
soon married Colonel Samuel Gilbert of the same town, a 
distinguished man in his day. After his death, having con- 
tracted the matrimonial habit, she married in 1775, as his 
second wife, Nathaniel Chauncey of Middletown, and herself 
departed in peace in 1795. 

At the death of Dr. Morrison, his home was bequeathed 
to his widow and son Roderick. They sold it, July 16, 
1765, to Colonel Samuel Gilbert, her husband. Sylvester 
Gilbert conveyed it, in 1778, to Peter Verstille, who kept a 
store there. From his administrator it passed, in 1784, to 
Captain John Chenevard. His son John Chenevard Jr., 
lived there, and, in 1803, received it by deed of gift. From 
his estate, Henry Seymour secured it in 1821, and the next 
year sold it to Jonathan Ramsey. 1 In 1829, Henry L. 
Ellsworth was engaged in the improvement of Central Row 
property. Having acquired this house and lot from Mr. 
Ramsey, he petitioned the Common Council for permission 
to remove the old gambrel-roof house to a new location on 
Prospect Street, "next north of the house lot of Thomas 
S. Williams, Esq.," and make alterations in it. 2 His request 
was granted, and the Roderick Morrison house, now over 
one hundred and sixty years old, was placed in its present 
location, north of the Connecticut Humane Society building. 

This ancient house, when it stood on the corner of Central 
Row, south of the Market Place, and was owned by Colonel 
Samuel Gilbert, was the home of Thomas Green, the founder 
of The Connecticut Courant,hefore his removal to New Haven. 
The following advertisement in that journal establishes this 
fact: "To be sold, or let, A good convenient Dwelling-Houfe 

1 Ibid., 8: 302; 11: 467; 12: 414; 13: 372; 15: 438; 16: 131; 24: 326; 
38: 157; 42: 214; 48: 166; 49; 361. See also The Hartford Times, Nov. 8, 1912. 

2 Common Council Records, Book C, p. 342. 



342 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

and Garden in Hartford near the Court Houfe, well fituated 
for any kind of Bufinefs, lately occupied by Mr. Thomas 
Green. For further Particulars, enquire of Samuel Gil- 
bert of Hebron, or the Printer hereof. N. B. The one Half 
of faid Houfe will be let, to any Perfon who fhall not incline 
to hire the whole." ! Moreover, in 1830, George Goodwin, 
then seventy-four years of age, who had been connected with 
the Courant from his boyhood, was called upon to testify 
as to the property where Parsons Theatre now stands. He 
then stated that he had "lived when an apprentice in the 
House lately owned by Jon a Ramsey, South of the Old 
Market." 2 So it was in this house that George Goodwin 
lived with the family of his master while he was preparing 
for his life work. The alterations that have been made in 
the building can easily be traced. It has been divided into 
two tenements, the rear portion has been added, and the 
gambrel-roof has given place to a third story. Probably, 
it was here also, that Thomas, the son of Thomas and 
Desire (Sanford) Green, was born in 1765. He was one of 
the founders of The Middlesex Gazette of Middletown. His 
baptism, on August 17, 1766, had been recorded at Christ 
Church in that town. In 1799, he became the partner of 
his father in the publication of The Connecticut Journal of 
New Haven. He died in 1825, aged 60 years. This house 
has associations, therefore, with the early days of The 
Connecticut Courant, and that remarkable family of printers, 
of which its founder was a member. 

1 The Connecticut Courant, Feb. 8, 1768. 

2 "Report on the Petition of Samuel Olcott" in State Street Papers, City Clerk's 
Office. 



CHAPTER XX 
INCORPORATION OF THE CITY 

In the year 1784, five cities were incorporated in Connecti- 
cut. The General Assembly, at its January session, granted 
such privileges to New Haven and New London, and, at 
its May session, to Hartford, Middletown, and Norwich. 
These are now, by many years, the oldest municipalities in 
New England, for Newport, incorporated that year, soon 
abandoned the experiment. 1 New York and Albany were 
made cities in the seventeenth century. Philadelphia fol- 
lowed in 1701. Richmond, Va., was incorporated in 1782, 
and Charleston, S. C, the next year. These five constituted 
the sisterhood of American municipalities, when the number 
was augmented by five others, brought forth, as it were, at 
one birth in Connecticut. None of this latter group had 
over four thousand inhabitants within the territory incor- 
porated. All of them had conducted in their ships before 
the Revolutionary War, a limited trade, which had made 
them acquainted with commercial life. We have no evi- 
dence that in any of them, except New Haven, this or any 
other reason had suggested the expediency of incorporation. 
The inference is that a movement originated in that town 
which spread to others. This could not have been due to 
any popular whim; nor did it arise from any jealousy among 
them. It had sufficient grounds to furnish the inhabitants 
in all of them with substantial reasons for seeking some 
departure from their ancient town government, in order to 
meet the conditions with which they were all confronted at 
the close of the Revolutionary War. As early as 1771, 
action had been taken in New Haven toward incorporation. 
A committee had then been appointed to consider the 
matter; but it never reported. This purpose was revived 

1 R. I. Col. Rec, X: 30, 217, 233, 234. 



344 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

in 1783. No doubt some local antagonism between "The 
Town-Born" and "The Interlopers" of New Haven was 
involved in the movement, but this has not been discovered 
in Hartford. 1 The real issue arose out of the liberal, ambi- 
tious and progressive spirit of those who had long been 
engaged in commercial affairs. In the discouraging condi- 
tions that followed the Revolutionary War, this spirit was 
manifest in all of the five towns concerned. It demanded a 
corporate agency more enterprising than the town system 
could afford. To examine this development in the incorpora- 
tion of the City of Hartford, is the writer's purpose. Thus 
the ancient town made its escape from the ultraconserva- 
tive, narrow and often sordid opinions that had grown up 
in colonial times. 

During the Revolutionary War, no hostile party of the 
enemy set foot within the bounds of Hartford. It furnished 
a large quota of soldiers for the army; and the sacrifices 
of its inhabitants were equal to those of any community 
in Connecticut. Members of its prominent families were 
engaged in the struggle, either in a civil or a military capacity. 
Prisoners of war were incarcerated in its jail. They were 
often seen in its streets, on parole, which an inland location 
was thought to render comparatively safe. There is evidence 
also that Hartford was a favorite resort for soldiers, some of 
whom were sick, or convalescing from wounds. It is well 
known that at certain times of inactivity, soldiers were 
allowed liberal absences, when better food and care were 
needed than the army could provide. At one time, some of 
Connecticut's militia were sent home to procure their daily 
bread. Provisions were often gathered at Hartford. Wagon- 
loads of supplies were continually being dispatched thence 
to the seat of war, or were tarrying for the night at its inns. 
Thus, throughout the war, the town was in the ferment of 
patriotism from other causes than the periodical gathering 
of the General Assembly, meetings of the Council of Safety 
and the important conferences, which were held by General 
Washington or his messengers at the home of Colonel 
Jeremiah Wadsworth. The effect of these conditions upon 

1 The Republic of New Haven, by Dr. Charles H. Levermore, in Johns Hopkins 
Historical Studies, 1886. 



INCORPORATION OF THE CITY 345 

the inhabitants was marked. It helped to strengthen the 
influence of certain patriotic leaders in the town's councils. 
There was developed among those who were most active, 
a hopeful energy in public affairs. The value of united 
effort, which had not been characteristic of colonial times, 
had an opportunity to prove itself in the midst of difficulties. 
Men who had been engaged in business recognized their 
common cause in the solution of problems, which peace 
would inevitably propound. Indeed, the Revolutionary 
War, like many another in history, created a new type of 
man, more progressive than those of colonial times. To 
him it was given to meet the issues of American independence. 
The close of the war found Connecticut greatly impover- 
ished. The financial burdens of the inhabitants had been 
heavy. The demands that had been made upon this state 
for provisions, are said by Governor Trumbull to have been 
"vastly beyond" her just proportion. Other states, not 
so favorably located for uninterrupted continuance of agri- 
culture, could not furnish the supplies that were repeatedly 
asked of "Brother Jonathan." Payment was usually made 
in a depreciating currency, which involved financial loss 
and caused discontent. Connecticut had also borne the 
cost of defending her own sea-coasts, an expense which the 
national government was unwilling to assume. In 1783, 
when the commutation or pension issue, and the proposal 
to grant Congress the right to lay an impost tax were under 
discussion, the people throughout the state were anxious 
and depressed, as they confronted the payment of an enor- 
mous debt, which, it was thought, would fall largely upon 
their agricultural interests. It was this situation that led 
to the creation of the progressive party of that day, and 
summoned the patriotic to action. They all saw that the 
state's brighter prospects lay in the revival of her commercial 
life. Money was very scarce, but, as Connecticut yankees, 
they knew that an export trade would bring it back. Thus 
merchants, whose business had been ruined by the war, 
reopened their warehouses, and sea captains began to make 
ready their vessels, which had bleached in the sun for years. 
This movement originated in New Haven, and Roger 
Sherman, who had been chairman of the committee in 1771 



346 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

and was again appointed in 1783, bore a conspicuous part 
in it. The action of the various towns concerned, will show 
how rapidly it spread. 

There is no doubt that current agitation of the impost 
question exerted an influence in this incorporation move- 
ment. Some thought that the right to place a duty upon 
articles imported from foreign lands, should be reserved by 
the states. Governor Trumbull, the Senate, and progress- 
ives generally, including several afterwards elected mayors 
of the new cities, considered a national impost essential to 
the Government's credit and standing. On this matter, 
the inhabitants of Hartford were divided. At a town meet- 
ing September 16, 1783, the freemen voted to oppose en- 
croachments of the American Congress upon the sovereignty 
and jurisdiction of the states. On the same occasion, they 
urged the General Assembly to regulate and encourage 
commerce within the state. This power of impost was not 
given by the Connecticut House of Representatives until 
May 20, 1784, nine days before the granting of Hartford's 
charter. The town's early opposition illustrates the unpro- 
gressive character of the action that might be expected at a 
freemen's meeting, and it must have made many of the new 
party aware of the fact. After that date, the impost ques- 
tion was more widely discussed. In the issue of The Con- 
necticut Gazette, December 12, 1783, a contributor, under 
the pseudonym Philo-Patriae, stated the matter thus: 
"This State ought at leaft to fecure the avails of her own 
hands: but if we are ftill to go on blind-fold, hiring Bofton 
and New York to import for us, at the fum of twelve and 
an half, and many times twenty-five per cent, they will 
have prudence enough to purchafe our cargoes at their own 
price, and make us pay for the purchafe in the goods they 
import with them." It then began to appear more clearly 
to many, that Connecticut must take whatever action would 
further the importation of foreign goods by her own mer- 
chants, in ships sailing from Connecticut ports. To this, 
their incorporation was considered essential. Governor 
Trumbull, who had already signified his intention of re- 
tiring to private life, took a prominent part in this discussion. 
He is credited with being the author of a series of six articles, 



INCORPORATION OF THE CITY 347 

which had been recently written, and had appeared in the 
above-named newspaper, beginning with the issue of March 
26, 1784. Their title was the "Policy of Connecticut." 
A prefatory note was signed by "S.M.," who may have been 
Samuel Marsh, a warm advocate of incorporation at Hart- 
ford. In these articles the author claimed that Connecticut 
consumed, annually, three hundred and fifty thousand 
dollars worth of imported goods, one-eighth of which only 
she imported herself, the residue being purchased from states 
that had, or would soon have — unless the power was granted 
to Congress — a local impost for the benefit of their own 
treasuries. 1 He advocated, in the fifth article, the incorpora- 
tion of towns, with independent jurisdiction in certain local 
matters. "The original plan of thefe incorporations in 
Connecticut," he says, "was suggefted with a view of pro- 
moting the commercial intereft of the diftrict propofed to 
be incorporated. In this refpect the plan is good and no 
doubt deferves the patronage of the Legiflature. But I 
conceive that fuch incorporations will have a provincial 
influence and that even afide of local advantages, the State 
at large will derive important benefits from the inftitution." 
He then reviewed the value of incorporation in European 
cities, and declared that opposition to such action in Con- 
necticut proceeded "from unreafonable jealoufy or from 
ignorance." It was a movement in which mechanics and 
farmers, as well as merchants, had an interest. "To the 
low ftate of commerce in Connecticut," he wrote, "muft be 
afcribed the prefent fcarcity of cafh which is always plenty 
where bufiness is lively." His concluding observation had 
such a direct application to the conflict of opinions in Hart- 
ford, that we may infer his acquaintance with the situation 
and intended reference: "The farming intereft muft bear 
all the public burdens till we improve our natural advantages 
and give extenfion to commerce." 2 

The plan for municipal incorporation in Connecticut was 
itself an admission of the impossibility of advancing com- 

1 The Connecticut Gazette, New London, April 9, 1784. Cf. Stuart's Life of Jona- 
than Trumbull, pp. 638, 639. 

2 The Connecticut Gazette, May 28, 1784. The same article had been published 
in The Connecticut Courant, May 18th. 



348 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

mercial interests under town government, as developed in 
colonial times. Its advocates stated that "a due regulation 
of the Internal police" was needed. "It is a matter of no 
small importance," they said, "that wharves, Streets & 
Highways be commodious for Business, & kept continually 
in good repair." That none of these towns would undertake 
such improvements, was too obvious to be disputed by many. 
All of them were agricultural communities, with a large 
outlying population of farmers, and only a small area within 
the town-plot. The tract along the water-front, especially 
devoted to commercial pursuits, was still more limited. 
Farmers living at a distance could not discover any advan- 
tages accruing to them by the building of wharves in Hart- 
ford; nor were they interested in the regulation of the town's 
streets. Governor Trumbull declared that "in the incor- 
porated towns in Connecticut the value of lands will in- 
creafe in two years, fufficient to defray the city-charges of 
twenty years." Such was probably the sequel, but, in 1784, 
the farmers of Hartford could not believe it. The contest, 
therefore, in all the five towns, was between the progressive 
inhabitants, seeking the revival of business life and the 
improvement of the town-plot, and the agricultural classes, 
which throughout colonial times had controlled the free- 
men's vote and persistently thwarted progress. The former 
thought it essential to create a corporate agency having the 
power to advance local interests. It need hardly be added 
that the same causes have operated since for the multipli- 
plication of Connecticut cities, and the assumption by the 
State of responsibilities that the towns have neglected. 
Under the conditions of 1784, the wonder is that any vote 
for incorporation was secured in Hartford. The difficulties 
had been lessened, however, by the incorporation of all the 
territory east of the Connecticut River, as East Hartford, 
which town held its first meeting on December 9, 1783. 
Thus the number of farmers in Hartford had been greatly 
reduced. 

The memorial of New Haven to the General Assembly 
was dated September 22, 1783. New London and Norwich 
took similar action before anything was done in Hartford, 
although the matter had been discussed. At a town meeting, 



INCORPORATION OF THE CITY 349 

held in the Court House, January 6, 1784, a committee of 
fourteen was appointed "to confider and fix the Limitts of 
that Part, or the Whole of this Town, which is propofed to 
be incorporated into a City." This meeting adjourned to 
January 9th, when Colonel Thomas Seymour and Mr. 
Chauncey Goodrich were instructed to present a memorial 
to the General Assembly, then in session at New Haven, 
asking for "the Incorporation of part of the Town of Hart- 
ford into a City with City privileges." That document is 
dated January 8th, and was probably the result of the de- 
liberations of the first committee. It employed much of 
the language of New Haven's memorial. The limits therein 
defined extended along the river, from Wethersfield to 
Windsor, and some distance westward. It also asked for 
"Jurisdiction in all commercial matters on said Connecticut 
River opposite to said Town of Hartford." This memorial 
was referred to the next General Assembly, meeting May 13th 
at Hartford. Meanwhile, both parties were active in their 
cause. The opposition prepared a remonstrance, dated 
April 29th and signed by seventy-one inhabitants. This 
was perhaps written by Captain George Smith, who was 
afterwards charged by twelve of its signers with using "vari- 
ous Arts & Misrepresentations of the design and tendency 
of said act of Incorporation" to secure signatures. It was 
accompanied by lists of certain inhabitants of both parties, 
and some who were neutral, with their taxable estate in 1783, 
designed to minimize the importance and standing of the 
progressives. 1 The remonstrance claimed that their ancient 
town government was vested with ample powers to make and 
enforce "Laws and Regulations for their Internal Police." 
This may have been true, but there were also ample votes 
to prevent the use of those powers for improvements within 
the town-plot. It claimed, too, that a corporation with 
city privileges would conflict with the town and involve 
much expense, trouble and confusion; that they were 
groaning under "large and heavy taxes occasioned by the 
war," and that many would be obliged to dispose of a part 
or all of "that Patrimony which hath descended to them 
from their Pious fore Fathers Who sought an Assyllyum in 

1 Slate Archives: Towns and Lands, X: 12 a., 13 a., 13 b. 



350 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

this then howling wilderness." The progressives, however, 
prepared a new memorial, dated May 6th. It was probably 
written by Mr. Chauncey Goodrich, the second mayor of 
the city and United States senator from Connecticut, 1807- 
1813, his associate in the Senate being James Hillhouse, 
one of the originators of the incorporation movement in 
New Haven. This memorial was signed by two hundred 
and nine inhabitants. The limits of the proposed city were 
admitted to have been "too extensive," and were altered 
as in the charter. The plea for jurisdiction in commercial 
matters on the east side of the river, was not repeated, but 
it was granted. Specific reference was made to the privileges 
that had been extended to New Haven and New London, 
and, for similar reasons, this patronage was asked for 
Hartford. The hope was also expressed that such action 
would be "the means of uniting the Efforts and Wealth of 
the commercial Part of the State in such useful and liberal 
plans of Trade as may rescue it from its dependence on our 
sister States and be an increasing emolument to our own." 
This petition was granted and "An Act for Incorporating a 
Part of the Town of Hartford" was passed May 29, 1784. 

The limits of the city thus established were substantially 
those embraced within the settled portion of the town in 
1640. They were defined as follows: "Beginning at a place 
called the Dutch Ground, upon the high land on the bank 
of the Great River, on the southerly side of said river as it 
now runs in the lot belonging to Thomas Seymour, Esq. 
[North of Charter Oak Avenue] and from thence a strait 
line to the northwest corner of Joshua Hempstead's dwelling- 
house [The southwest corner of Wethersfield Avenue and 
Wyllys Street], thence a westerly line to the northwest 
corner of James Steele's dwelling-house [The corner of Wash- 
ington and Jefferson streets], from thence a northwesterly 
course to the southwest corner of James Shepard's malt- 
house [Near the corner of Park and Lafayette streets], 
from thence northerly, a strait line to the Upper Mills, so 
called, including said mills [Imlay's Mills], thence northerly 
in a strait line to the northwest corner of Capt. John 01- 
cott's dwelling-house, including said house [The corner of 
Windsor Avenue and Belden Street], and from thence 



INCORPORATION OF THE CITY 351 

turning and running due east a strait course to the Great 
River." l The municipal government they had formed 
would now be considered somewhat crude. It was chiefly 
designed to carry out effectively the purposes for which it 
had been sought. With amendments and special acts, this 
charter served the city until 1821, long after most of their 
original purposes had been accomplished. The corporate 
name was, at first, "The Mayor, Aldermen, Common Council 
and Freemen of the city of Hartford." It was not until 
1859 that this name was changed to "The City of Hartford." 
The charter provided that, at an annual meeting of the 
freemen in March, they were to elect the mayor — who held 
his office during the pleasure of the General Assembly — 
four aldermen, and not more than twenty councilmen. 
These were to meet together as the Court of Common 
Council to deliberate on city affairs. The freemen were 
also to choose a clerk, treasurer and two sheriffs. A legal 
meeting of the freemen was made necessary to levy taxes, 
and they were to approve all by-laws made by the Court 
of Common Council. In the first memorial, the petitioners 
had asked the General Assembly to "institute a Court to 
be holden within said jurisdiction, with full Powers and 
Authority to hear, try and determine all Personal actions 
(where the Title of Land is not concerned) grounded on 
any Contract made or injury happening within said Limits, 
and that said Court may have a concurrent Authority in 
said Causes with the other Courts of Common Law in the 
State." The charter established this City Court, in which 
the mayor and two aldermen presided as judges. It was a 
common feature of all these Connecticut cities. 

Accordingly, the first freemen's meeting was held June 28, 
1784. The moderator was George Wyllys, Esq., the senior 
justice of the peace. Hon. Thomas Seymour was elected 

1 Connecticut Statutes, Revision of 1784, PP- 283 ff.; City Code, Hartford, 1856, 
pp. 265 ff. The City's limits were extended north to Capen Street, and south to 
Wawarme Avenue in 1853 (Private Laws of Conn., Ill: 392 ff.). Territory, mainly 
on the west, was added in 1859 (Ibid., V: 316 ff.). Another tract on the south was 
annexed in 1871 (Special Laws of Conn., VII: 136). In 1873, the remainder of the 
town was included, except a strip on the north, the addition of which, in 1881, 
made the town and city bounds coincident (Ibid., VII: 620; IX: 245). The City 
as originally chartered, covered 1700 acres, or one-sixth of the present area. 



352 THE COLOMAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

Mayor, an office which he filled for twenty-eight years. 
The aldermen chosen were: Col. Samuel Wyllys, Jonathan 
Bull Esq., Jesse Root, Esq., and Capt. Samuel Marsh. 
Twenty councilmen were elected, as follows: Capt. John 
Chenevard, Mr. Barnabas Deane, Ralph Pomeroy, Esq., 
Mr. James Church, Chauncey Goodrich, Esq., Mr. Peter 
Colt, Capt. John Olcott, Capt. John Caldwell, Mr. Zebulon 
Seymour, Mr. Zachariah Pratt, Mr. Ashbel Steele, William 
Nichols, Esq., John Trumbull, Esq., Mr. Barzillai Hudson, 
Capt. William Bull, Mr. Caleb Bull, Mr. John Morgan, 
Capt. Israel Seymour, Mr. Daniel Olcott, and Mr. Daniel 
Hinsdale. William Adams, Esq. was chosen City Clerk, 
Hezekiah Merrill, Esq., treasurer, and Capt. Joseph Talcott 
and Mr. James Wells, sheriffs. 

This roll represents the progressive inhabitants of Hart- 
ford, to whose efforts its incorporation was due. With the 
exception of two or three, who were neutral, presumably for 
good reasons, all of these were among the memorialists of 
May 6th. During the next five years, nine of them were 
displaced by others; but all of the new men, with two excep- 
tions, were memorialists. Strange to relate, one of the 
exceptions was Captain George Smith, who was chosen a 
councilman in 1785. He was the only one of the opposition 
who was thus honored for many years. Whether he experi- 
enced a change of mind, or was surrounded with fagots for 
torture, is unknown. The other exception was Colonel Jere- 
miah Wadsworth, who did more than any in Hartford to 
push forward the improvements of the infant city. He was 
absent on his mission to France and England during the 
controversy; but he was informed of the movement by his 
business representative, Peter Colt, and favored it. On 
April 25, 1784, Mr. Colt wrote him as follows: "The people 
in this State seem desirous of having our Goods imported 
directly from Europe — with this view they have granted 
City Privileges to N. Haven & New London, hoping that 
Measure would serve to collect the trading Interest to a 
point — but our Merchants seem too shy & reserved to 
consult their true Interest — Great dependance is had upon 
your returns to this Country & setting down in this your 
native spot. They know your knowledge & activity in 



INCORPORATION OF THE CITY 353 

Business is great & believe your Capital is equal to the occa- 
sion." The citizens of Hartford were not disappointed in 
Colonel Wads worth. This letter passed on the ocean another 
from him, in which he intimates his purpose of using some 
of his means in "building up my [his] Native Town." Im- 
mediately upon his return, he began this labor. He was 
elected first alderman in 1785, serving six years, and a second 
term from 1795 to 1798. Then for four years he was first 
councilman. Besides this, he represented Hartford for eleven 
years in the councils of the State. The value of these services 
to the new city can only be measured by an examination of 
municipal improvements to his death, in 1804. He was 
worthy of the tribute paid to him by Brissot de Warville 
upon his visit to Hartford: "It is the refidence of one of 
the moft refpectable men in the United States, Col. Wadf- 
worth. He enjoys a confiderable fortune, which he owes 
entirely to his own labour and induftry. Perfectly verfed 
in agriculture and commerce; univerfally known for the 
fervice he rendered to the American and French armies 
during the war; generally ef teemed and beloved for his 
great virtues; he crowns all his qualities by an amiable and 
fingular modefty. His addrefs is frank, his countenance 
open, and his difcourfe fimple. Thus you cannot fail to love 
him as foon as you fee him; efpecially as foon as you know 
him." 

By an examination of early improvements in the City of 
Hartford, the reader can clearly see, as in a mirror facing 
the colonial period of its history, the ancient town with all 
its old customs, disorder, encroachments, muddy highways, 
wooden buildings and long-standing needs. What the new- 
born citizens did to improve Hartford was what they 
admitted had been very unsatisfactory. No party of citizens 
since, has surpassed them in wisdom, method or enthusiasm, 
at the task of building a city. The powers they had sought, 
and received in the city's charter, disclose the failures of their 
town government. The Court of Common Council, at its 
first meeting July 13th, appointed a committee to prepare city 
by-laws, and one after another, as they were reported, the 
freemen approved them. The better regulation of trade and 
commerce was one of their first concerns. Inspectors were 



354 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

appointed for everything they exported. Goods were sent 
out, with the brand of Hartford upon them. Conferences 
were held with representatives of other Connecticut cities, to 
further their common interests. An act was passed relative 
to weights and measures, providing for sealing the same and 
punishing all fraud. Meanwhile, a committee of these new 
citizens had been observing the nuisances in their streets. 
Their first act reforming these was to restrain swine from 
going at large. In 1797, a similar ordinance was passed 
with reference to cattle, sheep and horses, and, a few years 
later, they suppressed the geese. On September 6th, this 
committee reported "that in each and all Streets and High- 
ways in the City, Nuisances and Obstructions are so numer- 
ous, multiplied and varied into too many Shapes and Forms 
to admit of a particular Description or enumeration." 
They were then authorized "to run the lines of the several 
Streets within the City and to Ascertain and Mark out and 
fix the Limitts and Bounds of the same and sett up Monu- 
ments and Marks descriptive thereof." In their report on 
September 27th, they gave names to their main highways. 1 
This report was accompanied with "a plan or map of the 
Bounds and Limits of the City, and also of the Highways 
and landing-places in the same, with their Bounds and lines, 
and of the encroachments made thereon." It was ordered 
on file, but has disappeared. Most likely it was a prelim- 
inary map, and was made by Solomon Porter, who after- 
wards carried his work to completion, in 1790. The records 
prove that his survey was exhibited at a City meeting, 
March 28, 1791. The Court of Common Council at a meet- 
ing March 31, 1792, having before it "Solomon Porter's 
Plan and Chart of the City, and Survey and Field Book," 
formally accepted and approved the same. 2 The establish- 
ment of the city's streets, after one hundred and fifty years 
of the town's careless administration, was one of their 
most difficult tasks in building the City of Hartford. Their 

1 "History of Hartford Streets" by Albert L. Washburn and Henry R. Buck 
in Publications of the Municipal Art Society, Bulletin No. 9., pp. 5-10. 

2 The original of this map is preserved among the collections of the Connecticut 
Historical Society, as also a copy. The Field Book is in the City Engineer's De- 
partment, where there is also a working copy of the map. Solomon Porter's sur- 
vey has been proved in court as a legal authority by Mr. Albert L. Washburn. 



INCORPORATION OF THE CITY 355 

ambitions were not satisfied with this. Throughout colonial 
times, the inhabitants had not demanded any radical altera- 
tions in their old roads. Workhouse Lane, from Trumbull 
to Ford streets, had been opened in 1725. Talcott Lane 
had been deeded to the town in 1761, by Samuel Talcott. 
Perhaps the inhabitants had begun to indicate, by the paths 
they made across lots, the location of other future highways. 
But, in 1788, several new streets were laid out. Colonel 
Wadsworth and others then deeded to the City land for 
Commerce Street. Morgan Street was laid out that year, 
from Main Street to the Connecticut River. In 1785, Cap- 
tain Daniel Phelps conveyed to the City land for Theatre, 
now Temple Street, which was opened in 1788. About the 
same time, also, Prospect Street was laid out, and it soon 
became a fashionable location for residences. The inhab- 
itants then began to take more particular notice of their 
buildings along these streets. An ordinance was passed in 
1789, with reference to this matter, by which an undesirable 
nearness to the street could be prevented. The obstruction 
and misuse of sidewalks, which were then constructed by 
abutting owners, was forbidden in 1793. Public lamps were 
not provided by the City until 1821. Of course, there was 
then no public water supply, although "The Proprietors of 
the Hartford Aqueduct" conceived one in 1797, when they 
purchased Babcock's well, and they laid some wooden pipes. 1 
A few householders probably had private drains. An 
amendment to the City's charter in 1843, empowered the 
Court of Common Council to construct sewers. 2 The pres- 
ervation of the new city from fire was one of their earliest 
considerations. Apparently, a fire-engine was owned in 
Hartford in 1785, when Captain William Bull was appointed 
to have it repaired. Ladders and buckets had been the 
chief part of their fire apparatus in colonial times. The city 
was soon divided into fire wards. In 1789, they organized 
a fire department under an engineer. 3 The Court of Com- 
mon Council also enacted some by-laws that reflect very 

1 The Hartford Times, Jan. 15 and Feb. 10, 1891. 

2 The Hartford Courant, Sept. 20, 1907. 

3 The Hartford Times, Nov. 16, 1907: The Hartford Courant, June 7, 1910. 
Sept. 25, and Dec. 28, 1913. See also Theodore Broome's Record Book, Ex-Chief 
Henry J. Eaton. 



356 THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD 

unpleasantly the sanitary conditions of the colonial town. 
Deeds have been found that prove the actual existence of 
hog-pens and barns along their streets. Factories for the 
manufacture of soap and tallow candles, tanneries and slaugh- 
ter-houses, were not far away from some pretentious man- 
sions. Within the town-plot there were ponds of water, 
more or less stagnant, and pools that served for drainage of 
their barns. An acquaintance with such conditions enables 
us to appreciate the wisdom and energy of the city fathers 
in dealing with them. 

The progressive citizens, to whom Hartford owed its 
early incorporation, did not limit their efforts to these 
reforms and improvements. Their interest in commercial 
affairs became profitable in a way they did not at first an- 
ticipate. After the Revolutionary War, emigration up the 
Connecticut River became popular. Many who removed 
were from Connecticut. Then the era of up-river trade was 
inaugurated. Some of Hartford's leading merchants were 
engaged in it. "It is only six or seven years," says a writer 
in 1792, "since the first boat was built at Windsor, Vt. and 
business is now increased to hundreds of tons yearly." At 
that time sloops discharged their cargoes at Warehouse Point ; 
but, after 1810, when the bridge was built, Hartford was the 
head of sloop navigation for eight years. In 1788, Colonel 
Wadsworth became interested in improving the river's 
channel. The sequel was the incorporation of John Cald- 
well, John Morgan and others in 1800 as the "Union Com- 
pany," with the privilege of collecting tolls. A lottery was 
granted in 1789, for the purpose of erecting wharves at 
Hartford. In these and other commercial schemes, these 
same citizens were interested. The Hartford Bank was 
incorporated in 1792 "to facilitate commercial operations." 
Its officers and most of its directors were among the me- 
morialists of 1784. Indeed, wherever one finds in the records, 
newspapers or manuscripts of those years, the details of 
any new enterprise, which it was thought would be for the 
up-building of the City of Hartford or the welfare of its 
inhabitants, there the names of these citizens testify to their 
devotion. 

Thus it happened, in the year 1792, when the erection of 



INCORPORATION OF THE CITY 357 

a State House was proposed, these were the men to claim 
it for Hartford's square. A proposition had been made that 
very year, by a writer in The Connecticut Courant, with 
much plausibility, to sell from that area two rows of store 
lots, to "raise money to extend the public landings on the 
river. It was then described as "a valuable but now ufe- 
lefs furplus . . . large, rough, muddy, deformed fquare, 
commonly called State-Square, one fourth of the year 
almoft impaf sable by man or be*aft; moft of it of little ufe 
except as a lumberyard, and from the peculiar nature of 
the foil and the prefent ftate of the town, there is little 
profpect of its being improved by leveling, paving &c." l 
As early as April, however, "the Subscribers for a New 
Court-Houfe" had been requested to meet "at Mr. David 
Bull's Long Room" on "business of importance." 2 Their 
subscription paper is dated June 1st. The leading signers 
were: Jere Wadsworth, Tho s Seymour, George Wyllys, 
John Trumbull, John Caldwell, Jn° Morgan, Bar 8 Deane, 
David Bull, Hudson & Goodwin, Wm, Jos. & R. Hart, 
Tho s Hopkins & Charles Hopkins, W m Moseley and Chauncey 
Goodrich, who subscribed sums from one hundred to five 
hundred dollars, and forty-five others, whose subscriptions 
were smaller. Most of those here named had been, or then 
were, members of the Court of Common Council. All of 
the subscribers were the City's friends — the representa- 
tives of the memorialists of 1784. So it has come to pass, 
by no purpose of theirs but the fortunes of time, that the 
historic edifice, which they and their associates did so much 
to erect, survives as a memorial of the early struggles of the 
City of Hartford. 

"Post Nubila Phoebus." 

1 The Connecticut Courant, Feb. 27, 1792. 

2 Ibid., April 23, 1792. 



INDEX 



Adams, 274, 305-307, 352. 

Adams, Jeremy, 32, 125, 139, 216-219, 

233-235, 257, 258. 
Adams's inn, 216-219, 233-235. 
Adventurers' Field, 12, 55, 140, 141. 
"Adventurers" of Hartford, 12, 13. 
Agawam, see Springfield. 
Agriculture, 156, 157, 345, 348. 
Allyn, John, 117, 129, 145, 164, 184, 

185, 202, 227, 265, 277, 285, 320, 325, 

331. 
Allyn, Mathew, 11, 12, 32, 60, 67, 124, 

140, 142, 144, 146, 277, 285. 
Allyn's mills, 12, 55, 182-185. 
Almshouse, 292-294. 
Andrews, 125, 145. 
Andrews, William, 33, 90, 124, 184, 

196, 227, 253, 254, 256. 
Andros, Sir Edmund, 218, 228. 
Arms, 236, 242, 243, 329, 334. 
Arnold, John, 32, 125. 
Arnold, Jonathan, 145. 
Arramamet, 93, 94. 
Ashley, Jonathan, 145. 
Ashton, Joseph, 238. 
Austin, 170, 246, 290, 313, 315, 339. 
Averill, 189. 
Ayres, William, 284. 



15 



Babcock, James, 189. 

Bacon, Andrew, 32, 108, 114, 125, 162, 

205, 206, 215, 331. 
Badger, Daniel, 186. 
"Badger's Road," 185, 186. 
Balch, Ebenezer, 309. 
Baptists, 214. 
Barding, Nathaniel, 125. 
Barnard, 88, 155, 164, 165, 289, 316, 

324. 



Barnard, Bartholomew, homestead of, 
164. 

Barnard, Francis, 259, 331. 

Barnard, John, 2, 6, 11, 12, 125, 195, 
254. 

Barnes, Mary, 285, 286. 

Barnes, Thomas, 125, 146, 149. 

Barrett, Joseph, 179. 

Bartlett, Robert, 125. 

Bassaker, Peter, 303. 

Bates, Albert C, 132, 315. 

Bayard, William, 321. 

"Bay Path," 35, 37-46. 

Baysey, John, 32, 125, 247. 

Beach, Miles, 308. 

Beach, Rev. Abraham, 308. 

Benjamin, Asher, 226. 

Benjamin, Gideon, 238, 240. 

Benton, 177, 195, 207, 305. 

Betts, Widow Mary, 125, 254. 

Bibbins, Elijah, 88. 

Bidwell, John, 125, 185, 195, 209. 

Bigelow, 169, 175, 179, 238. 

Billings, Richard, 127. 

Birch wood, Thomas, 125. 

Bird, Thomas, 167, 168. 

Bissell, John, 44. 

Blachford, Peter, 147. 

"Black Horse Tavern," 235, 236. 

Blackleach, John, 299. 

Blackley (Blatchley, Blakesley), Thom- 
as, 127, 147. 

Blair, John, 291. 

Blakeley, Josiah, 313. 

Bliss, Isaac, homestead of, 321. 

Bliss, Thomas, 126, 149. 

Block, Adriaen, 92, 93, 99. 

Blue Hills, 137, 138, 143. 

Blumfield, William, 2, 33, 125, 146, 149. 

Boardman, Rev. Benjamin, 239, 332. 

Bolles, John, 214. 

Boosey, James, 215, 287. 

Boswell, Sir William, 111, 112. 

Bowen, Consider, 305. 



360 



INDEX 



Brace, Thomas, K., 172. 
Bradley, Aaron, 178, 194, 310. 
Brainard, Adonijah, 194. 
Brewster, Jonathan, 3, 8. 
Brick-kiln, 12, 140. 
Brick-kiln Brook, see Gully Brook. 
Brick School House, 270, 271. 
Bricks, 155, 156, 324, 325. 
Bridgeheld, 133, 134, 144, 145. 
Bridges, 143, 176, 183-185, 187-192, 

356. 
Buckingham, Joseph, 211, 305, 306. 
Buckingham, Rev. Thomas, 209, 305, 

306. 
Buckland, William, 92. 
Bulfinch, Charles, 224. 
Bulkeley, Stephen, 219. 
Bull, 169, 172, 177, 178, 195, 238, 245, 

307, 316-318, 332, 352, 355, 357. 
Bull, Aaron, homestead of, 307, 332. 
Bull, Amos, homestead of, 332. 
Bull, Daniel, homestead of, 321. 
Bull, Dr. Jonathan, 206, 207, 308. 
Bull, Lieut. Thomas, 32, 33, 36, 87, 88, 

125, 147, 206, 209, 262-264. 
Bull, Major Jonathan, 87, 206, 299. 
Bull's tavern, 238. 
Bunce, 219, 230, 235, 306, 308. 
Bunce, Thomas, 126, 147, 149, 188, 

189, 207. 
Burnham, 93, 175, 194, 206, 238, 

306-308, 312, 313. 
Burr, 72, 73, 162, 189, 196, 332. 
Burr, Benjamin, 33, 125, 147, 148. 
"Burt's Mills," 189. 
Buryiug-grounds, 115, 135, 138, 314. 
Bushnell, Rev. Horace, 195. 
Butler, 194, 196, 286, 308, 310, 338. 
Butler, Moses, 195, 239, 308. 
Butler, Richard, 32, 125. 
Butler, William, 6, 11, 13, 14, 125. 
Butler's tavern, 238, 308. 



Cable, John, 194. 

Caddy, William, 170. 

Cadwell, 145, 169-174, 216, 238. 

Calder, John, 179. 

Caldwell, 179, 223, 291, 300, 309, 310, 

352, 356, 357. 
Camplx-ll, John, 229. 



Canonchet, 96. 

Carrier, Titus, 291. 

Carrington, 110, 283. 

Carter, Joel, 195. 

Cattle of settlers, 8, 9, 16, 33, 35, 116, 
135, 156, 157. 

Causeways, 160, 161. 

Cedar Mountain, 139. 

Centinel Hill, 10, 162-165. 

Chalker, Benoni, 313. 

Chaplin, Clement, 3, 11, 13, 14, 32, 62, 
63, 80, 142, 236. 

Chapman, Elisha, 274. 

Charter secreted, 218, 219. 

Chase, Levi B., 38, 41. 

Chauncey, Nathaniel, 341. 

Chenevard, 172, 177, 178, 193, 236, 
300, 309, 310, 315, 341, 352. 

Cheney, Benjamin, 240. 

Chester, 144, 223, 224, 280. 

Chicopee River, 35, 42, 43. 

Christ Church, 214, 226, 318. 

Church, 260, 300, 316, 352. 

Church, Richard, 125, 260. 

City Hall, 226, 227. 

Clark, 145, 222, 237, 285, 302. 

Clarke, John, 2, 33, 125, 126, 147. 

Clarke, Nicholas, 6, 11-13, 125, 146. 

Clocks, 202, 329, 330. 

Colden, Alexander, 231. 

Cole, James, 125, 197. 

Cole, John, 284. 

Collier, Joseph, 142. 

Collins, Rev. William, 252-254. 

Collyer, 237, 238, 302, 315. 

Colt, Mrs. Elizabeth, 90. 

Colt, Peter, 352. 

Commerce and trade, 166-172, 176-179, 
295-318, 338, 339, 345-348, 356. 

Commission for a Provisional Govern- 
ment, 17-29, 65-«8. 

"Committee," 70, 77, 78. 

Connecticut cities incorporated, 343- 
350. 

Connecticut, constitutional govern- 
ment of, 64-80. 

Connecticut Courant, 229, 230, 306, 
308, 311-313, 315, 316, 341, 342. 

"Connecticut Path," 35, 37-46. 

Connecticut River, 2, 8, 14, 16, 85, 87, 
99-104, 166, 168, 356. 

Constables chosen, 6, 7, 27. 

Converse, Thomas, 318. 



INDEX 



361 



Cook, Aaron, 179, 221. 

Corning, Ezra, 309. 

Corning Fountain, 185. 

Cornwall, William, 126, 146, 149. 

"Country Road," 43-46. 

Court chamber in the inn, 217, 219; 

in the meeting-house, 201, 202, 

220. 
Court houses proposed, 220. 
Cowles, John, 285. 
Cow Pasture, 137, 138. 
Cow-yard, 135. 
Craftsmen, 295, 296, 303, 304. 
Crimes and misdemeanors, 278-294. 
Criminal courts, 276, 277. 
Crosby, Ebenezer, 305. 
Crow, John, 86, 87, 125, 127, 168, 325. 
Cullick, John, 127, 147, 260, 262, 277. 
Currecombe, 97. 
Currie, Robert, 315. 



1) 



Daniels, Leonard, 189. 

Davenport, Rev. John, 260-264. 

Davenport, William, 203. 

Davie, 333, 334. 

Davis, 147, 333. 

Davis, Rev. John, 258, 259. 

Davy, Evan, 155, 288. 

Day, Maynard, 318. 

Day, Robert, 2, 10, 11, 13, 32, 125, 322. 

Deane, Barnabas, 178, 352, 357. 

Deane, Silas, 273. 

"Deputy," 70, 80. 

de Rasieres, Isaak, 100. 

Desborough, Nicholas, 125, 145, 148, 
265, 303. 

Devotion, Rev. John, 271. 

De Vries, 98, 107, 114, 115, 152, 181. 

Dodd, 312, 313, 334, 335. 

Doolittle, Enos, 224, 308, 311-313. 

Dorr, Rev. Edward, 269. 

Drinking customs, 240, 241. 

"Dug-outs," 9, 11, 15. 

Dunbar, Moses, 291. 

Dutch, claims of, 21-23, 84, 85, 98- 
115; lands occupied by settlers, 26- 
28, 106, 107; conflict with English, 
107-113; lands sequestered, 113, 114. 

Dutch Point, 23, 106, 135, 192, 193. 



E 



East Hartford, 118, 172, 173, 213, 348. 
Easton, 155, 279. 
Easton, Joseph, 2, 32, 125. 
East-side distributions, 117, 118, 123, 

126-128, 140. 
Eaton, Gov. Theophilus, 260, 262. 
Edwards, 172, 175, 203, 237, 248, 290. 
Edwards, William, 142, 184, 248, 287. 
Election Day, 244. 
Eliot, Rev. John, 35, 39, 42, 95. 
Ellery, 170, 186, 192, 230, 231, 310. 
Ellsworth, Oliver, 309, 310. 
Elmer, Edward, 6, 11, 13, 125, 146, 163, 

164, 320. 
Ely, Nathaniel, 2, 6, 11-13, 125, 140, 

163. 
Encroachments, 161, 162, 353, 354. 
Endicott, Dr. John, 317. 
Ensign, James, 2, 32, 108, 114, 125, 

208. 
Evans, John, 63. 
Exports, 295, 298, 300. 



Fairbanks, Richard, 228. 

Fairs, 296, 297. 

Farmington, Indians of, 81, 97, 117. 

Farnsworth, David, 291. 

Fashions of dress, 245-250. 

Fellows, Richard, tavern of, 43. 

Fenwick, Mistress Mary, 280. 

Ferries, 88, 170, 173-176. 

Field, Zachary, 125, 146, 148. 

First Church, land of, 87, 88, 165; 
meeting-houses, 197-204, 210, 211; 
proposes union with Second Church, 
209, 210; controversy in, 258, 259. 

Fish, Dr. Eliakim, 318. 

Fisher, Thomas, 148. 

Fitch, 166, 256, 287-289. 

Fitch, Rev. James, 245, 256. 

Fitch, Samuel, 256-259. 

Flagg, Samuel, 130, 235, 236. 

Flagg's tavern, 235, 236. 

Folly Brook, 139. 

Ford, Thomas, 61, 72, 216, 233, 287. 

Ford's inn, 216. 

Fordways, 26, 189, 193. 

Fortified houses, 164. 



362 



INDEX 



Foxcroft, Thomas, 230. 
Foxen, 94. 
Francis, Asa, 306. 
Franklin, Benjamin, 230. 
"Freemen," 77. 

Fundamental Orders, adoption of, 72- 
77. 



G 



Gabiel, Mary, 245. 

Gallows, 286, 289, 291. 

Gardiner, William, 309. 

Gardner, 127, 171. 

Garret (Garrad), Daniel, 96, 125, 148, 
285, 288. 

"General Court," 71, 72. 

Gennings, John, 126, 325. 

Gennings, Nicholas, 2, 146, 148. 

Gibbons, William, 33, 114, 121, 125, 
259, 278, 333. 

Gibbs, 44, 72, 313. 

Gilbert, 114, 192, 195, 237, 238, 283, 
341. 

Gilbert, Jonathan, 168, 170, 171, 173, 
236, 237, 253, 285, 296. 

Gildersleve, Richard, 63. 

Goodhue, Betsy, 292. 

Goodman, Richard, 6, 11-13, 125, 137, 
142, 145, 146, 287. 

Goodrich, Chauncey, 349-352, 357. 

Goodrich, Elizur, 211. 

Goodwin, 299, 300, 315, 342. 

Goodwin, Elder William, leader of 
pioneers, r 6, 9, 16, 25, 80, 107; house - 
lot of, 11, 309; proprietor, 124; land 
granted to, 13, 86, 87, 137, 142, 145; 
purchases Sequassen's land, 22-24, 
27, 116; represents Governor Hop- 
kins, 257-264; sawmill of, 325. 

Gove, William, 315, 340. 

Graham, Benjamin, 186. 

Grannis, Edward, 196. 

Grant, Mathew, 9, 44, 62. 

Grant, President U.S., 225. 

Grant, Seth, 32, 125, 142, 254, 322. 

Grave, George, 32, 125, 205, 208, 285. 

Great Swamp, 139. 

Green, Henry, 287. 

Green, Thomas, 311-313, 315, 341, 342. 

Greene, Bartholomew, 127. 

Greene, Gen. Nathaniel, 178. 

Greenhill, 257, 258, 265. 



Greenhill, Samuel, 2, 32, 257. 
Greensmith, Nathaniel and Rebecca, 

283-287. 
Gridley, Thomas, 126, 147. 
Griswold, Edward, 285. 
Gross, 300, 307, 332, 338-340. 
Gross, Jonah, homestead of, 337-340. 
Gully Brook, 55, 140, 151, 152. 
Gurney, John, 143. 



II 



Hale, Samuel, 125, 146, 148, 285. 

Hale, Thomas, 125, 146, 149. 

Hall, John, 125, 147, 182-184. 

Halsey, Jeremiah, 223. 

Hamilton, Andrew, 229. 

Hamlin, Alanson, 274. 

Hancox, Thomas, 288. 

Hannison, Martha, 90. 

Hart, 222, 285, 357. 

Hart, Stephen, 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, 124, 
142, 146. 

Hartford, town organization of, 47-80; 
named, 54, 166; original bounds of, 
116-118; early population, 152, 153; 
city incorporated, 343-357; bounds 
of, 350, 351; corporate seal of, 166, 
167. 

Hartford Aqueduct, 355. 

Hartford Bank, 356. 

Hartford Grammar School, 260-270, 
272-275. 

Hartford jail, inmates of, 95, 214, 
282-286, 288, 289, 291; erection of, 
286-288, 290-292. 

Harvard College, 261, 263. 

Hayden, William, 3, 125, 146, 148, 149. 

Haynes, Gov. John, arrival of, 33; 
Governor of Massachusetts Colony, 
67; Magistrate and Governor in 
Connecticut, 71-73, 79, 98, 108, 110, 
117, 277; proprietor, 124; land 
granted to, 137, 142, 145; pasture 
of, 177, 192; home of, 328. 

Haynes, John, 129, 142, 329. 

Haynes, Rev. Joseph, 142, 196, 204, 
205, 285, 329. 

Hayward, Henry, 195. 

Hayward (Howard), Samuel, 168, 195, 
239, 267, 268, 308, 339. 

Hempstead, Joshua, 350. 



INDEX 



363 



Hender, Thomas, 194. 

Higginson, Rev. John, 125, 199, 251, 
252, 254. 

Highways, 10, 26, 43, 44, 139, 141-144, 
153, 158-160, 169, 178, 354, 355. 

Hill, 61, 315. 

Hilldrup, Thomas, 231, 315, 317. 

Hillhouse, James, 350. 

Hills, John, 147. 

Hills, Jonathan, 211. 

Hills, William, 27, 125, 253, 254, 263, 
264. 

Hinsdale, Amos, 238, 305. 

Hinsdale, Barnabas, 306. 

Hinsdale, Daniel, 193, 312, 313, 352. 

Hoadly, Dr. Charles J., 17, 19, 200, 
203, 283. 

Hockanum Indians, 81, 91-94, 117, 118. 

Hog River, 143, 182. 

Holbrook, Samuel, 273. 

Holloway, John, 3, 125, 146, 148, 165, 
304. 

Holmes, Lieut. William, 46, 103, 106. 

Holton, William, 2, 125, 149. 

Homesteads, 319-321, 326. 

Hooker, 130, 196, 223, 246, 249, 307, 
308, 311, 313, 330. 

Hooker, Rev. Samuel, 285. 

Hooker, Rev. Thomas, purposes a 
removal from Newtown, 1-10, 18-22; 
pilgrimage of, 34—46; arrival at 
Hartford, 24, 25; leader in the emi- 
gration, 30; company of, 5, 11, 13, 
24, 30-34; lot reserved for, 11; polit- 
ical opinions of, 20, 21, 64, 65, 73, 
74; favors the Pequot War, 83, 84; 
acquires land, 137, 142, 145, 169; 
proprietor, 124; is given meeting- 
house by the town, 198, 199; en- 
gaged in trade, 299; home of, 193, 
322-324, 330. 

Hopewell, Sarah, 88. 

Hopkins, 155, 178, 279, 310, 357. 

Hopkins, Dr. Lemuel, 318. 

Hopkins, Gov. Edward, arrival of, 33; 
chosen committee, 72, 73; Magis- 
trate, 79, 277; Governor, 108; pro- 
prietor, 124; engages in trade, 298, 
300; builds a bridge, 187, 188; 
acquires land, 135; homestead and 
buildings of, 96, 193, 332, 333; favors 
a grammar school, 255-258; makes 
a bequest for education, 260-264; 



coat of arms in the schoolhouse, 
265. 

Hopkins, John, 2, 32, 125. 

Hosmer, 129, 222, 270, 272, 314. 

Hosmer, Thomas, 33, 108, 124, 209, 
233. 

House of Hope, 3, 11, 16, 100, 103, 107, 
109, 110, 112-115, 136, 181, 193. 

Houses, building of, 55, 154-156; 
schools in, 252-265, 321-327; fur- 
nishings of, 327-331. 

Hubbard, 337, 338. 

Hubbard, George, 72, 80, 126. 

Hudson and Goodwin, 194, 312, 357. 

Hudson, Barzillai, 306, 307, 312, 352. 

Hull, George, 72. 

Humphrey, Lemuel, 189. 

Hunt, Jonathan, 335. 

Hurlbut, Thomas, 147. 

Huske, Ellis, 229. 

Hutchinson, Gov. Thomas, 34-36. 

Hutchinson, Mrs. Ann, 252. 

Hyde, Ezra, 195, 308. 

Hyde, William, 32, 125. 



Imlay, 115, 186, 196, 316. 

"Imlay's Mills," 185-187. 

Imports, 295, 298, 299, 346, 347, 352. 

Ince, Jonathan, 124, 127, 146. 

Indian fort, 84-90. 

"Indian Land," 84-89. 

Indian paths, 9, 10, 35-46, 81. 

Indian village, 10, 81-83. 

Indians, lands purchased from, 14, 

22-24, 116-118. 
"Inhabitants," 49-51, 69, 70, 72, 73, 

116, 117, 120, 123, 136. 
Inns, ordered, 215, 216, 233; courts 

convened at, 215-220; social life of, 

232-235. 
Ipswich, 1, 2. 
Islands, 114, 137, 167, 168, 185, 193, 

195, 196. 



Jackson, President Andrew, 225. 

Janes, Jonathan, 292. 

Jeffrey, John, 273. 

Jepson, Dr. William, 231, 306, 317. 



364 



INDEX 



Johnson, Mary, 283. 
Johnson, President Andrew, 225. 
Jones, 143, 177-179, 309, 310. 
Judd, Thomas, 2, 32, 125. 



K 



Kake, Goodwife, 267. 

Keeler, Ralph, 125. 

Keith, John, 316. 

Kellogg, Nathaniel, 125. 

Kelsey, William, 6, 11, 13, 125, 196, 

303. 
Ketchell, Samuel, 93. 
Kieft, Director William, 111, 112. 
Kilbourn, Samuel, 178. 
King Philip's War, 42, 94, 96, 240. 
Knowles, John, 145, 179. 
Knox, William, 172, 175, 179, 238. 



La Fayette, Marquis, 225, 226. 

Lands, recorded, 4, 52, 58, 60, 62, 132; 
forfeited, 13, 14, 121; purchased 
from the Indians, 22-24, 27, 104-106, 
116, 118, 120; granted by the town's 
courtesy, 119, 120; distribution of, 
10, 12, 13, 53, 54, 60, 63, 78, 79, 83, 
84. 

Landing-place, 169-172, 176. 

Langdon, John, 274. 

Latimer, John, 127. 

Lawrence, John, 200, 270, 316, 321. 

Laws, code of, 78, 277, 278. 

Lay, Edward, 126, 147, 149. 

Ledlie, Hugh, 230, 316. 

Ledlie, Samuel, 186, 196. 

Ledyard, John, 130, 186, 231. 

Lello, Sir Henry, 260. 

Lewis, 172, 273, 304. 

Lewis, William, 11, 32, 124, 142, 145, 
304. 

Lincoln, President Abraham, 268. 

Little Meadow, 10, 82, 83, 134, 135, 
168, 177-180. 

Little Ox Pasture, 13, 138. 

Little River, 10, 16, 26, 133, 181-196. 

Livingston, Peter R., 195. 

Long, Thomas, 185. 

Loomis, 189, 222, 274. 



Lord, 129, 195, 207, 227, 228, 301, 

329. 
Lord, John Haynes, 177, 315, 330. 
Lord, Richard, 32, 114, 125, 298. 299, 

301, 322, 323, 329. 
Lord, Thomas, 3, 32, 33, 55, 125, 155. 
Lord, Thomas, Jr., 32, 125. 
Loveridge, William, 264, 265. 
Ludlow, Roger, 8, 17, 20, 39, 60, 62, 

66-68, 72, 73, 79, 80. 
Lyman, Richard, 32, 125, 156, 322. 



M 



Manchester, 118. 

Manorolos, 85-87. 

Manufactures, 193, 194, 196, 242, 303, 

304, 313, 314. 
Maps and plans, 11, 38, 44, 85, 88, 93, 

134, 182, 183, 306, 354. 
Maritime Company, 179. 
Markets, 194, 296, 297. 

Marsh, 145, 185, 186, 196, 300, 331, 

335, 347, 352. 
Marsh, John, 32, 118, 125. 
Marshall, 72, 285. 
Marvin, Mathew, 3, 6, 11, 12, 16, 124, 

135, 142. 
Mashoot, Robin, 89. 

Mason, Major John, 72, 80, 233, 242. 
Massachusetts, jurisdiction of, 1, 18, 

19, 21. 
Massecup, 96, 97. 
Mathews, William, 288. 
May, Hezekiah, 211. 
Maynard, John, 32, 125, 327. 
McDowell, Alexander, 291. 
McKnight, John, 229, 230, 299, 301, 

302. 
McLean, 293, 310. 
Meaking, Thomas, 288. 
Meers, Stephen, 309, 310. 
Meeting-houses, 197-214. 
Meeting-house yard, 10, 153, 162, 200, 

227, 296, 297, 337-342, 357. 
Merchants, 297-303. 
Merrill, 155, 196, 309, 310, 352. 
Messenger, Daniel, 174, 175, 179. 196, 

238. 
Methodists, 214. 
Miantinomo, 84, 86, 94-96, 106. 
Middle Ox Pasture, 13, 141. 



INDEX 



365 



Military trainings, 241-244. 

Mills, 12, 182-189, 193, 325. 

Mitchell, John, homestead of, 338. 

Mitchell, Mathew, 62, 72. 

Monroe, President James, 225. 

Moody, John, 32, 56, 123, 124, 305. 

Mookler, James, 314, 315. 

Moor, 317. 

Moore, 61, 219. 

Moraheick, 93. 

Morgan, Elias, 292. 

Morgan, John, 223, 317, 352, 356, 357. 

Morgan, Joseph, 144. 

Morris, John, 125, 216, 338. 

Morrison, Dr. Normand, 178, 179, 230 

317. 
Morrison, Dr. Roderick, homestead of, 

340-342. 
Morse, Moses, 318. 
Moseley, William, 291, 317, 357. 
Moween, 288. 
Moxon, George, 72, 73. 
Mudge, Jarvis, 284. 
Munn, Benjamin, 126, 146, 148. 
Munnumquask, 89. 
Munson, Thomas, 146, 149. 
Murray, Cotton, 195, 238, 313, 318. 
Mygatt, Joseph, 32, 125, 126, 185, 186 
238, 321. 

N 

Namerick Brook, 44-46. 

Nassehegan, 97. 

Natawanute, 81, 84, 94, 103, 104, 106. 

Neale, Thomas, 229. 

Neck, 16, 138. 

Nevins, 316. 

Newberry, Roger, 291. 

Nichols, 118, 129, 189, 193, 194, 273 

352. 
North Meadow, 10, 135, 136. 
North-side Plantation, 15, 22, 52-57, 

73, 123, 131-133. 
Norton, Jacob, 194. 







Olcott, 164, 165, 177, 178, 208, 286, 

300, 309, 350, 352. 
Olcott, Thomas, 125, 146, 240. 
Oldham, John, 37, 107. 



Old Ox Pasture, 142. 

Olmsted, James, 11, 12, 32, 124 135 

142, 156. 
Olmsted, John, 32, 125, 149. 
Olmsted, Nicholas, 12, 14, 147, 285. 
Olmsted, Richard, 32, 125, 135, 146. 
Onepenny, Sarah, 88, 89. 
Opdyck, Gysbert, 107, 108. 
"Original Distribution," 131-133, 320. 
Osborn, John, 45. 
Ox Pasture, 138. 
Ox Pasture River, 141, 182. 



Packs, Henry, 202. 

Palisado, 10, 16, 215. 

Palmer, Cotton, 211, 212. 

Pantry, 143, 169, 177, 323. 

Pantry, William, 2, 6, 11, 12, 124 142 
169, 322. 

Parker, James, 229, 230, 231. 

Parker, Rev. Thomas, 1. 

Parker, William, 32, 125, 142, 147. 

Parkman, Elias, 45. 

Parsons, Isaac, 274. 

Patten, George J., 222, 274. 

Patten, Nathaniel, 194, 313. 

Patten, Rev. William, 274, 306. 

Payne, Benjamin, 299, 309. 

Pease, Nathaniel, 175, 238. 

Peck, Paul, 126, 149. 

Peirce, John, 125, 146, 148, 149. 

Pelton, Samuel, 238. 

Penalties and punishments, 277-282 

286. 
"Pequot Heads," 89, 90. 
"Pequot Path," 39. 
Pequot War, 33, 48, 55, 71, 83, 84, 90 

117, 146-150, 242. 
Perkins, Enoch, 275. 
Perkins, Frederick B., 187. 
Perry, John, 228. 
Pesiponck, 90, 91. 
Peters, Rev. Hugh, 18, 19, 111. 
Phelps, 317, 341, 355. 
Phelps, William, 60, 66-68, 72. 
Phillips, William, 125, 146, 149. 
Physicians, 239, 306, 316-318. 
Pinefield, 141. 
Pin Tree Hill, 145. 
Pioneers of Hartford, 4-16. 



366 



INDEX 



Piper's River, 145. 

Pitkin, 92, 238. 

Pitkin, William, 221, 259, 260. 

"Plantations," 48-63. 

Plumb, John, 72. 

Plymouth traders, 8, 17, 100-104, 107. 

Podunk Indians, 81, 94, 95, 117, 118. 

Poke Hill, 139. 

Polk, President James K., 225. 

Pomeroy, Ralph, 194. 

Porter, Solomon, 177, 191, 193-195, 

274, 354. 
Porter, Thomas, 127. 
Porter, William S., 11, 82, 134, 136, 

138, 167. 
Post, Stephen, 2, 32, 125, i.01. 
Postal service, 228-231. 
Pounds, 53, 162. 

Pratt, 165, 186, 222, 317, 318, 335, 352. 
Pratt, John, 32, 125, 126, 287. 
Pratt, William, 125, 146, 148. 
Proprietors of Hartford, 116-130. 
Proprietorship, 50, 60, 63, 78, 79, 119, 

120, 127. 
Parehase, John, 125, 146, 149. 
Pynchon, John, 201, 331. 
Pynchon, Rev. William, 39, 50, 51, 66, 

•17, 72. 



(i 



"Quabaug Path," 41. 



R 



Ramsey, Jonathan, 341, 342. 
Randall, Abraham, 44. 
Raynor, Thurston, 72. 
Reed, Joseph, 194, 308. 
Revolutionary War, 179, 194, 308, 

317, 318, 321, 344-346, 356. 
Richards, 259, 333, 334. 
Richards, James, 96, 117, 155, 209, 

246, 264, 330, 332-337. 
Richards, Nathaniel, 32, 125, 142. 
Richards, Thomas, 126. 
Richards, Thomas, son of James, 129, 

334, 335. 
Risley, Richard, 125, 149. 
Rocky Hill, 139. 
Rogers, 288, 291. 
Root, Thomas, 125, 146, 148. 



Rosseter, Bray, 60-62. 

"Rule of Division," 122, 124, 125. 

Ruscoe, Nathaniel, 283, 322. 

Ruscoe, William, 3, 32, 124, 142, 283, 

286-288. 
Russell, Dr. Gurdon W., 163, 222. 



Sable, John, 125. 

Sadd, John, 196. 

Sadler, John, 237. 

Saltonstall, Gov. Gurdon, 42, 220, 333. 

Saltonstall, Sir Richard, 19, 28. 

Sandford, Zachary, 139, 218, 219, 

233-235, 331. 
Sanford, 147, 308. 

Sanford, Andrew and Mary, 284, 285. 
Saybrook, 18, 25-28. 
Saye and Sele, Lord, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 

28, 106, 111. 
School districts, 269-272. 
Schools, 251-275. 
Scipio Two Shoes, 88, 89. 
Scott, 216, 280, 288. 
Scott, Thomas, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 55, 124, 

142, 169, 183, 197, 216, 279, 280. 
Seager, Richard and Elizabeth, 284- 

286. 
Second Church, formed, 204, 205; 
lands of, 87, 88, 189, 305-307, 311; 
meeting-houses, 190, 205-208, 211- 
213. 
Sedgwick, Eben, 212. 
Selden, Thomas, 125, 149. 
Sequassen, 23, 81, 85-87, 92, 96, 116, 

117. 
Seymour, 145, 155, 186, 193, 194, 207, 
230, 239, 240, 307, 309, 321, 341, 352. 
Seymour, Captain Thomas, 334, 335. 
Seymour, Mayor Thomas, 268, 349- 

352, 357. 
Seymour, Richard, 126, 148, 327. 
Seymour, Thomas, Esq., 212, 267, 268, 

272, 308. 
Seymour, Thomas Y., 268, 274. 
Sexton, Knight, 230. 
Sheldon, 193, 194, 305, 330, 335. 
Sheldon, Isaac, homestead of, 835-337. 
Shepard, 193, 194, 257, 309, 317, 350. 
Shepard, Rev. Thomas, 4-7, 24, 261. 
Sherman, Roger, 345. 



INDEX 



367 



Ships, arrival of, 2-4, 18; owned at 

Hartford, 299, 300, 338, 339; trans- 
port provisions, 8, 31, 338. 
Shipyards, 178, 179, 192, 300. 
Shops and stores, 165, 192-195, 297, 

303-318. 
Short, Thomas, 229. 
Sidewalks, 161. 
Skinner, 194, 195, 290, 310. 
Skinner, John, 32, 125, 183, 184. 
Sloan, Robert, 301, 302. 
Sloan, Thomas, 318. 
Smith, 178, 237, 238, 315. 
Smith, Arthur, 32, 125, 147. 
Smith, Captain George, 317, 349, 350, 

352. 
Smith, Dr. Solomon, 178, 302, 316. 
Smith, Giles, 126. 
Smith, Rev. Henry, 62. 
Smyth, Henry, 66, 67, 72. 
Social morality, 281, 282. 
Social vices, 240, 241, 244, 245. 
Soldiers' Field, 82-84, 132, 146-148. 
Songonosk, 93. 
Southfield, 139. 

South Meadow, 13, 84-90, 135, 136. 
South-side Plantation, 22, 26-28, 52- 

57, 73, 123, 131-134. 
Sowheag, 81. 

Spencer, 142, 184, 196, 332. 
Spencer, Thomas, 33, 146, 163. 
Spencer, William, 33, 54-56, 67, 78, 

80, 123, 124, 141, 184, 198, 200, 260, 

322. 
Springfield, 31, 43, 50-52, 72, 73, 94, 

131, 201. 
Stanley, 118, 129, 147, 170-172, 189, 

191, 194, 207, 290, 311, 329, 331. 
Stanley, Thomas, 2, 6, 11, 12, 124, 125, 

137, 142, 148, 311. 
Stanley, Timothy, 2, 11, 32, 124, 126, 

322. 
Stanton, Thomas, 32, 125, 147, 285, 

290, 298. 
State House, of 1719, 221, 222; of 1792, 

222-226, 356, 357. 
Stebbins, Edward, 11, 13, 32, 125, 135, 

145, 173, 257, 258, 262, 264, 287, 322. 
Steele, 164, 259, 306. 
Steele, George, 32, 114, 125, 146, 149. 
Steele, John, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 55-58, 

62, 66-73, 80, 124, 126, 132, 135, 142, 

169, 184, 215-217, 227. 



Stiles, Francis, party of, 8, 17. 

Stiles, Henry, 44. 

Stocking, George, 2, 32, 125. 

Stone, John, 11, 13, 32, 147. 

Stone, Rev. Samuel, a leader, 2, 4, 30, 
80; removal of, 24-27; lot reserved 
for, 11; proprietor, 124; land granted 
to, 109, 137, 142; purchases Sequas- 
sen's land, 22-24, 27, 116; serves in 
the Pequot War, 147; examines the 
witches, 283-285; in church contro- 
versy, 258; home of, 322, 323, 327, 
329, 330. 

Stone Pit Hill, 145. 

Stone quarries, 55, 155, 324. 

Strong, Nehemiah, 273. 

Strong, Rev. Nathan, 302, 309. 

Stuart, Hon. Isaac W., homestead of, 
218, 219. 

Stuyvesant, Director Peter, 113. 

Suckiaug, agents visit, 2, 3; Indians 
of, 2, 10, 23, 81-84; pioneers at, 
7-16; lands purchased, 22-24. 

Swaine, William, 66-68. 

Swift, Rowland, 210. 



Tantiusque, 38, 42. 
Tantonimo, 92, 93. 
Talcott, 117, 118, 129, 164, 165, 172, 

196, 235, 265, 267, 317, 329, 330. 

352, 355. 
Talcott, John, 11, 12, 32, 55, 56, 67, 

72, 73, 110, 124, 126, 142, 145, 163, 

188, 216, 217, 254, 258, 259, 277, 287, 

322. 
Taverns, 175, 179, 236-240. 
Taxation, 54, 57, 119-123, 127, 128, 

345-348, 351. 
Taylor, 189, 193, 195. 
"Taylor Collection," 337. 
Terry, Nathaniel, 226. 
Thomas, John, 195, 314. 
Thompson, Andrew, 195, 273. 
Thornton, 61, 175, 176. 
Tidmarsh, Dr. Richard, 317. 
Tiley, 172, 179, 213, 214, 237, 315, 316 
Tillotson, Joseph, 186. 
Todd, Ira, 189. 
Toocker, Joseph, 179. 
Toto of Windsor, 94. 



368 



INDEX 



Town clerk, 57-60, 62, 227, 228. 

Town Common, 128-130, 143, 144, 146. 

Town court, 59-63. 

Town Votes, 54, 55. 

Town's courtesy grants, 119, 120, 125- 

127, 134. 
Townsmen, 51, 52, 55, 57, 61, 62. 
Trumbull, 166, 223, 224, 244, 246, 260, 

265, 274, 352, 857. 
Trumbull, Dr. J. Hammond, 23, 67, 

93 259, 283. 
Trumbull, Gov. Jonathan, 230, 297, 

345-348. 
Tryper, Sally. 245. 
Tucker, Isaac, 230, 307, 308. 



I' 



Uncas, 86, 92, 94, 95. 
Uncas, Joshua, 93, 118, 128. 
Underhill, Captain John, 113, 114. 
Updike, John, 113, 114. 
Updike, John, 303. 
Upson, Thomas, 125. 



Van Curler, Jacob, 103-105. 

Vane, Henry, Jr., 18, 19. 

Van Twiller, Director Wouter, 102, 107. 

Varlett, 246, 284. 

Venturers' Field, see Adventurers' 

Field. 
Verstille, Peter, 341. 
Vibbard, Elisha, 178. 
Visiting customs, 242. 



W 



Warehouses, 165, 170-172, 176, 178, 

300, 301, 303, 313, 317. 
Warren, Thomas, 208, 331. 
Warren, William, 206, 265. 
Warwick, Earl of, 17, 28, 67, 111. 
Warwick Patent, settlement under, 14, 

17-29, 65-68, 106, 107. 
Washburn, Albert L., 114, 314, 354. 
Washington College (Trinity), 192. 
Washington, President George, 194, 

237, 344. 



Watkinson, Robert, 228. 

Watson, 177, 178, 306, 307. 

Watson, Ebenezer, 306, 307, 311-313, 

315. 
Watson, Rev. Caleb, 266. 
Watts, Richard, 125, 149. 
Watts, Thomas, 90, 149, 209. 
Watts, William, 126, 149. 
\Y;i\varme, 97. 

Webb, Richard, 6, 11, 12, 124, 142. 
Webster, 227, 240, 285, 316, 324. 
Webster, Gov. John, 32, 72, 73, 78, 

124, 126, 135, 258, 277. 
Webster, Noah, 273. 
Welles, Gov. Thomas, 32, 55, 69, 72, 

73, 80, 124, 126, 135, 277, 330. 
Welles, Hon. Gideon, 268. 
Wells, 177, 179, 220, 268, 352. 
West Division, 117, 118, 128, 143, 152. 

213, 269. 
Westfield, 140. 

West India Company, 26, 99-101. 
Westley, William, 125, 149. 
West River, 141. 
Westwood, William, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 

56, 66-69, 123, 124, 130, 142, 163, 

179, 188. 
Wethersfield, settlers of, 1, 3, 4, 13, 14, 

17-20; Indians, 81; town organiza- 
tion of, 47, 48, 62, 63. 
Wharves, 169, 172, 175-177. 
Wheelock, Rev. Eleazar, 274. 
White, Elder John, 24-27, 124, 209, 

258, 259, 332. 
Whitefield, Rev. George, 212. 
Whitehead, Samuel, 32, 147. 
Whiting, 88, 89, 170, 185, 207, 257, 

274, 288, 307, 331. 
Whiting, Joseph, homestead of, 307, 

331, 332. 
Whiting, Rev. John, 204-209. 284, 285, 

331. 
Whiting, William, 32 124, 257, 277, 

298-301, 322, 331. 
Whitman, Rev. Elnathan, 289, 308. 
Wigglesworth, Rev. Michael, 258. 
Wilcox, John, 32, 125, 185, 242. 
Willetts, Nathaniel, 265, 285. 
Williams, 93, 196, 231, 313, 335. 
Williams, Rev. Roger, 90. 
Williamson, 237, 299. 
Willoughby, Francis, 261. 
Wilson. 237. 2t<). 






INDEX 



369 



Windsor, settlers of, 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 
17-20, 41, 44-46, 49, 50; Indians, 
81, 88, 89; town organization of, 
47, 48, 59-62. 

Windsor Town Votes, 61, 62. 

Winslow, Gov. Edward, 102. 

Winthrop, Gov. John, Jr., regent under 
the Warwick patentees, 18-20; 
65-€8; at Saybrook, 25-29, 33; 
grant of Tantiusque to, 38; journey 
of, 38, 41, 216; a resident of Hartford, 
329. 

Witchcraft, 282-286. 

Wolcott, 61, 285. 

Wolcott, Hon. Oliver, 224. 

Wolterton, Gregory, 32, 56, 114, 125, 
209, 285, 322. 

Wolves, 139. 

Wood, Benjamin, 186, 194. 

Woodbridge, 224, 240, 332, 335, 336. 

Woodbridge, Mrs. Abigail, 272, 309. 

Woodbridge, Rev. Samuel, 249. 

Woodford, Thomas, 125. 



Woods River, 141, 142. 

Woodward and Saffery, 38, 41, 42, 44. 

Work-house, 289-294. 

Worthington, William, 238. 

Wright, 273, 288, 315. 

Wyllys, George, 33, 78, 79, 124, 135, 

277, 329. 
Wyllys, George, Esq., 219, 228, 351, 

357. 
Wyllys, Hezekiah, 228. 
Wyllys, Samuel, 117, 129, 164, 218, 264. 

277, 285, 329. 
Wyllys, Col. Samuel, 166, 302, 352. 



Yale, Ann, 260. 
Yale College, 221, 261, 263. 
Yeomans.. Jonathan, 186. 
Young, Alse, 283. 
Young, Seth, 212. 



